Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26- Council Office CITY OF SAN BErNARDINO - REQUEST FOR 'OUNCIL ACTION From: Councilman F.J. Curlin Subject: Smoking Ordinance Amendment Dept: Council Office Date: May 10, 1994 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: ✓S:LJ. 0::-i� ] .!!,YS: 2.: 21 Recommended Motion: That Chapter 8.72 of the Municipal Code, relating to smoking, be amended to read as per attachment. ,_39�- _'Zow Signature Contact Person: Councilman F.J. Curlin, Second Ward Phone: 5222 Supporting Data Attached: Yes Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct.No.) (Acct. Descriotionl Finance: Council Notes: Agenda Item No. City Attorney DRAFT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING CHAPTER 8.72 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SMOKING 3 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 4 DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 5 SECTION 1. Chapter 8. 72 of the San Bernardino Municipal 6 Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 7 "8.72.010 Legislative findings. 8 The Mayor and Common Council find and declare that: 9 A. Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is 10 a major contributor to indoor air pollution. The 11 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 12 conducted additional studies to warrant the 13 classification of environmental tobacco smoke 14 (ETS ) or secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen 15 and is the only agent ever classified by the EPA 16 as a known human lung carcinogen. 17 B. Reliable studies have shown that breathing 18 secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard, 19 especially for certain population groups, 20 including elderly people, children, individuals 21 with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with 22 impaired respiratory function, including 23 asthmatics and those with obstructive airway 24 disease; 25 C. Health hazards induced by breathing secondhand 26 smoke include lung cancer, respiratory infection, 27 decreased exercise tolerance, decreased 28 respiratory function, bronchioconstriction, and DAB/is [Smoking3.Ord] 1 May 9. 1994 © 0 City Attorney 1 bronchiospasm; ® RA H 2 D. Nonsmokers with allergies, respiratory disease 3 and all others who suffer ill effects of 4 breathing secondhand smoke may experience a loss 5 of job productivity; 6 E. The Surgeon General of the United States has 7 advised nonsmokers to avoid exposure to tobacco 8 smoke wherever possible, and found that simple 9 separation of nonsmokers and smokers lowers but 10 does not eliminate the risk of nonsmokers from 11 secondhand smoke; 12 F. The smoking of tobacco, or any ,other weed or 13 plant, is a proven danger to health; 14 G. The Surgeon General of the United States has 15 declared that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine 16 or heroin; no other addictive product or drug, or 17 cancer causing product or drug is sold through 18 vending machines: 19 H. The U.S. Secretary of Health, the U.S. Surgeon 20 General and the leading voluntary health 21 organizations all recommend the elimination of 22 cigarette vending machines for health reasons; 23 I. Accordingly, the health, safety and general 24 welfare of the residents of, persons employed in, 425 and persons who frequent this City will be 26 benefitted by the regulation of smoking in 27 enclosed places. 28 DAB/is [Smoking3.0rd] 2 Msy 9, 1994 ® City Attorney Attorney 1 8.72.020 Definitions. DRAFT 2 The following words and phrases, whenever used in 3 this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this 4 section: 5 A. "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the 6 serving of alcoholic beverages and in which the 7 service of food is only incidental to the 8 consumption of such beverages. A bar includes 9 only those places which prohibit entry at any 10 time by any individual under the age of 21. 11 B. "Business" means any sole proprietorship, 12 partnership, joint venture, corporation or other 13 business entity formed for profit making purposes 14 as well as professional corporations and other 15 entities which provide legal, medical, dental 16 engineering, architectural, or other professional 17 services and which "business" employees two (2) 18 or more persons. Management employees shall be 19 included in the calculation of the two or more 20 persons. 21 C. "Employee" means any person who is employed by 22 any employer in consideration for direct or 23 indirect monetary wages or profit, and any person 24 who volunteers his or her services for a non- 25 profit entity. 26 D. "Employer" means any business and any non-profit 27 entity with two or more employees. Management 28 employees shall be included in the calculation of DAB/is [Smokin93.Ord] 3 May 9. 1994 City Attorney 1 the two or more persons. DRAFT 2 E. "Enclosed Area" means all space between a floor 3 and ceiling which is enclosed on all sides by 4 solid walls and/or windows (exclusive of door or 5 passage ways) which extend from the floor to the 6 ceiling, including all space therein. 7 F. "Enclosed athletic recreation area" means 8 gymnasiums, health spas, swimming pools, roller 9 and ice rinks. 10 G. "Freestanding Bar" means a bar which is located 11 in its own building or if in a building with 12 another business or restaurant, has its own 13 independent air ventilation system and a floor to 14 ceiling physical barrier. 15 H. "Non-profit entity" means any corporation, 16 unincorporated association, or other entity 17 created for charitable, educational, political, 18 social, or similar purposes, the net proceeds 19 from the operation of which are committed to the 20 promotion of the objects or purposes of the 21 organization and not to private financial gain. 22 A public agency is not a "non-profit entity" 23 within the meaning of this section. 24 1. "Place of employment" : means 1 ) any enclosed 25 area, 2 ) under the control of a public or private 26 employer, 3 ) which employees occupy with normal 27 frequency during the course of employment, 28 including but not limited to, work areas, DAB/is [Smoking3.Ord] 4 May 9, 1994 City Attorney D RAU 1 employees lounges, and restrooms, conference and 2 classrooms, cafeterias, and hallways, except that 3 a private residence is not a place of employment, 4 unless it is used as a child care or health care 5 facility. 6 J. "Public place" means any enclosed area to which 7 the public is permitted, including but not 8 limited to: banks, private educational 9 facilities, health facilities, public 10 transportation facilities, malls, reception 11 areas, restaurants, retail food production and 12 marketing establishments, retail service 13 establishments, retail stores, theaters, and 14 office waiting rooms. A private residence is not 15 a public place. 16 K. "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria, 17 tavern, sandwich stand, soda fountain, private or 18 public school cafeteria, and any other eating 19 establishment, organization, club, boarding 20 house, or guest house, which gives or offers food 21 for sale to the public, guests, patrons, or 22 employees, except that the term "restaurant" 23 shall not include a cocktail lounge or tavern if 24 said cocktail lounge or tavern is a "bar" as 25 defined herein. 26 L. "Retail tobacco store" means a retail store 27 utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco 28 products and accessories. DAB/js [Smoking3.ord] 5 May 9, 1994 © ^,ity Attorney DRAFT I M. "Service line" means an indoor queue in which one 2 or more persons routinely wait for or receive 3 service of any kind, whether or not such service 4 includes the exchange of money. 5 N. "Smoking" means the igniting, inhaling, or 6 carrying of any burning cigar, or cigarette of 7 any kind, or the igniting, inhaling, exhaling or 8 carrying of a pipe or other device for smoking, 9 containing any burning substance. 10 O. "Waiting room space" means the common area of any 11 office, restaurant, theater or any other facility 12 where persons routinely wait. 13 P. "Tobacco vending machines" means any machine or 14 device designated for or used for the vending of 15 cigarettes, cigars, tobacco, or tobacco products 16 upon the insertion of coins, bills, trade checks 17 or slugs. 18 8.72.030 Prohibition against smoking in city owned facilities. 19 Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed facilities 20 owned by or under the direct or indirect control of 21 the City of San Bernardino. 22 8.72.040 Prohibition against smoking in public .23 places. 24 A. Smoking shall be prohibited except as otherwise 25 specifically set forth herein in all enclosed 26 public places, including, but not limited to, the 27 following: 28 1. Elevators and restrooms. DAB/is [Smoking3.ord] 6 May 9. 1994 © City Attorney DRAFT 1 2. Buses, taxicabs and other means of public transit 2 operated under the authority or Franchise of the 3 City of San Bernardino, and ticket boarding, and 4 waiting areas of public transit depots. 5 3. Service lines. 6 4. Retail stores. 7 5. Retail food marketing establishments, including 8 grocery stores and supermarkets. Those areas of 9 such establishments set aside for the purpose of 10 serving food and drink shall be subject to the 11 same provisions as set forth herein for the 12 regulation of smoking in restaurants. 13 6. All areas available to and customarily used by the 14 public in all businesses and non-profit entities 15 patronized by the public, including, but not 16 limited to, such areas in business offices, banks, 17 hotels and motels. 18 7. Public areas of aquariums, libraries, and museums 19 when open to the public. 20 8. Any building not open to the sky which is used 21 primarily for exhibiting any motion picture, 2 stage, drama, lecture, musical recital or other 23 similar performance, except when smoking is a part 24 of any such production. 425 9. Enclosed athletic recreation area. 26 10. Waiting rooms of doctors ' offices and dentists' 27 offices, hallways, wards, and patient rooms of 28 health facilities, including, but not limited to, DAB/i. [S—kinO.Ord7 7 May 9, 1994 City Attorney DRAFT 1 hospitals, clinics, and physical therapy 2 facilities. 3 11. Polling places. 4 B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 5 section, any owner, operator, manager or other 6 person who controls any establishment described 7 in this section may declare the entire 8 establishment or any portion thereof to be a non- 9 smoking area. 10 8. 72.050 Smoking in restaurants. 11 Smoking is prohibited and is unlawful within all 12 enclosed restaurants. 13 8.72.060 Child care facilities. 14 Smoking is prohibited and unlawful in any 15 facility or private home providing child care, either 16 licensed or unlicensed, and either on a 24-hour basis 17 or day care, for children not part of the family of 18 the provider, but only when children are present. 19 8.72.070 Regulation of smoking in places of employment. 20 Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, 21 smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed places of 22 employment. 23 8.72.080 Vending machines. 24 No cigarette or other tobacco product may be 25 sold, offered for sale, or distributed by or from a 26 vending machine or other appliance, or any other 27 device designed or used for vending purposes except in 28 DAB/ja [Smoking3.Ord] 8 May 9. 1994 0 ty Attorney DRAFT 1 freestanding bars. 2 8.72.090 Where smoking is not regulated. 3 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 4 chapter to the contrary, the following specific and 5 limited areas shall not be subject to the smoking 6 restrictions of this chapter. 7 1. Bars and freestanding bars. 8 2. Up to 35% of hotel and motel rooms in a hotel or motel 9 rented to guests may be designated as smoking rooms; 10 providing however, that smoking shall be prohibited in 11 the lobby, conference rooms, and other common areas of 12 hotels and motels. 13 3. Retail tobacco stores. 14 8.72.100 Posting of smoking and no smoking areas. 15 A. The international "No Smoking" symbol (consisting 16 of a pictorial representation of a burning 17 cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar 18 across it on a sign of a minimum of six inches 19 ( 6" ) in width and eight inches (8" ) in height), 20 citing this subsection shall be clearly, and 21 conspicuously posted in every building or other 22 place where smoking is controlled by this chapter 23 by the owner, operator, manager or other person 24 having control of such building or other place. 25 B. Every theater owner, manager or operator shall 26 conspicuously post signs in the waiting area 27 stating smoking is prohibited. 28 DAB/js [Smoking3.0rd] 9 May 9. 1994 0 'ity Attorney i 6.72.110 Violations. DRAFT 2 A. It is unlawful for any person to smoke in a place 3 where smoking is prohibited by this chapter. 4 B. It is unlawful for any person who owns, manages, 5 operates or otherwise controls the use of any 6 premises subject to the prohibition of this 7 chapter to fail to comply with any of its 8 provisions. 9 C. Any person or business which violates subsection 10 "A" or "B" of this section or permits such 11 violations, or any other provision of this 12 chapter, except as otherwise provided herein 13 shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable as 14 set forth in San Bernardino Municipal Code, 15 Section 1. 12.010(B) . 16 8.72.120 Enforcement. 17 A violation of any of the provisions of this 18 chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and may be 19 abated by the City through means of restraining order, 20 preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other 21 manner provided by law for the abatement of such 22 nuisance and the City may take action to recover the 23 cost of such nuisance abatement. 24 Notwithstanding any other provision of this 25 chapter, a private citizen may bring a legal action to 26 enforce this chapter. 27 8.72.130 Non-Retaliation 28 It is hereby declared to be a violation of public DAB/is [Smoking3.ord7 10 May 9. 1994 City Attorney DRAFT 1 policy for a person or employer to discharge, refuse 2 to hire, or in any manner retaliate against any 3 employee or applicant for employment because such 4 employee or applicant exercises any rights afforded by 5 this chapter. 6 8.72.140 Other applicable laws. 7 This chapter shall not be interpreted or 8 construed to permit smoking where it is otherwise 9 restricted by other applicable law or regulation. 10 8.72.150 Severability. 11 If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph 12 of this chapter or the application thereof to any 13 person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such 14 invalidity shall not affect the other provision of 15 this chapter which can be given effect without the 16 invalid provision or application, and to this end the 17 provisions of this chapter are declare to be 18 severable. " 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAB/is [Smoking3.Ord] 11 May 9. 1994 p 1 AN ORDINANCE. . .AMENDING CHAPTER 8.72 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SMOKING 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly 3 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 4 Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the 5 day of 1994, by the following vote, to wit: 6 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 7 NEGRETE 8 CURLIN 9 HERNANDEZ 10 OBERHELMAN 11 DEVLIN 12 POPE-LUDLAM 13 MILLER 14 15 16 City Clerk 17 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this day 18 of 1994. 19 20 Tom Minor, Mayor City of San Bernardino 21 Approved as to form 22 and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorne 01 24 City P� 25 By` 26 27 28 DAB/js [Smoking3.Ord] 12 May 9, 1994 C I T Y OF S A N B E R N A R D I N O INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: May 12 , 1994 TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Rachel Clark, City Clerk SUBJECT: Mayor and Council Meeting of May 16, 1994, Item #26 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8. 72 relating to Smoking COPIES: City Administrator Shauna Clark, City Attorney James Penman --------------------------------------------------------------- Please be advised that this office has received 883 letters of protest to Item #26, An ordinance of the City of San Bernardino amending Chapter 8.72 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code relating to smoking. 496 letters (568) are from City of San Bernardino residents, the remaining 387 are from out of town residents. These letters of protest are on file with this office. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. me. Rachel Clark City Clerk RC:mav Backtracking at EPA? Facts Catch Up With ` Political ' Science Peter Samuel, Peter Spencer, and the editors of CR ' fficials in charge of federal regulatory economists and government officials had reached policy have come incxe. ngiy under fire the dismaying conclusion that much of America's [ in recent months for use of allegedly environmental program had gone seriously awry. faulty"science"that leads to mistaken progn ms. They said the nation's environmental policy had enormous costs, and disservice to taxpayers and been allowed to evolve in reaction to popular pan- consumers. ics rather than in response to sound scientific These charges are not unusual, of course, and analysis-" many such have been reported in previous issues The Times notes that some of the sweeping of Consumers'Research. What is noteworthy in environmental laws written in the late 1970s— this case is that the accusations have been com- "in reaction to popular concerns about toxic ing, not simply from outside critics and/or people waste dumps or asbestos in schools, as exam- affected by the programs, but from spokesmen ples—were based on little if any sound research within the regulatory community itself, and about the true nature of the threat" The result, other official agencies of the government— as Richard Morgenstern, in charge of policy plan- including federal courts and science advisory ning and administration at the EPA, told the bodies. paper, was that"we're now in the position of say- This means, in essence, that the government ing in quite a few of our programs, 'Oops, we in certain cases is admitting the erroneous made a mistake.'" nature of much regulatory policy. In particular, Such an indictment of the quality of science there is a rising consensus that a good deal of used to drive regulations is particularly harsh what has been cited as a science-research basis because it comes from the highest government for that policy has been constructed the other authorities. Among these sources is the EPA way around: The policy has dictated or influ- itself: Former EPA Administrator William K. enced the "science," and the evidence has been Reilly, for example, admitted in 1991 that "there sorted out to fit an existing mind-set,if not a pre- has been plenty of emotion and politics, but scien- mnceived conclusion. tific data have not always been featured promi- While charges of this type afflict a number of nently in environmental efforts and have government regulatory bodies, by far the major sometimes been ignored even when available." focus of such criticism is the Environmental Pro- The findings of an EPA-appointed expert panel tection Agency (EPA). Through a wide variety of went even further. The panel's March 1992 programs, this agency has spread a network of report, Safeguarding the Future: Credible Sci- controls throughout society, dealing with haz- ence, Credible Decisions, found a "climate and ardous substances, clean air and water, wetlands, culture" within the EPA that cast serious doubt and many others. The officially estimated cost of on the quality of science used by the agency to this is at least $140 billion a year. Yet serious justify its programs. Indeed, scientists play a questions are being raised as to whether this minor role inside the agency, which tends to be enormous sum is being well-spent, or whether dominated by lawyers and other non-scientists. the policy it pays for helps, or hurts, the public. Even many agency personnel perceived that EPA According to a recent series on environmental science was "adjusted to fit policy." Among its policy in The New York Times, "leading scientists, specific findings: • EPA's "science activities to support regulato- Mr. Samuel, who specich2es in enuironment¢I report- ry development...do not always have adequate, ing, is o contributing editor of National Review. Mr credible quality assurance, quality control, or Spencer is editor ofCR. peer review." And although the agency receives 10 Consumers Research 'sound advice,"it"is not always heeded." well as costs, and failed to look at the relative The EPA "has not always en rid that con- safety of alternatives. trasting, reputable scientific views are well- The court characterized EPA's rejection of explored and well-documented from the intermediate regulation such as warnings and beginning to the end of the regulatory Process." restrictions on the use of asbestos as"offhand It Instead, "studies are frequently carried out with- noted that the EPA explicitly rejected considering out the benefit of peer review or quality astir- the harm that may flow from the use of substi- ance. They sometimes escalate into regulatory totes "even where the probable substitutes them. proposals with no further science input, leaving selves are known carcinogens," and said this was EPA initiatives on shaky scientific ground." a clear violation of the law. " The agency "does not scientifically evaluate "Eager to douse the dangers of asbestos, the the impact of its regulations," and "scientists at agency inadvertently actually may increase the all levels throughout EPA believe that the agency risk of injury Americans face,"the court said- does not use their science effectively." The court also questioned what amounted to EPA's pursuit of "zero risk" with regard to asbestos. The ruling noted, for example, that the "...scientists play a minor role proposed ban of three asbestos products would inside the agency, which tends theoretically save seven lives over a span of 13 to be dominated by lawyers and years, at a cost of up to $300 million. The num- other non-scientists. Even many ber of deaths supposedly prevented in this way agency personnel perceived that wou d be roughly half the fatality toll in a simi- lar period to accidents with toothpicks, accord- EPA science was 'adjusted to fit ing to the decision. policy."" "As...our review of the EPA case law reveals, such high costs are rarely,if ever,used to support a safety regulation," the court said. From substances such as asbestos, dioxin,envi- Costs such as these, however, are dwarfed by ronmental tobacco smoke, and radon to controls what the EPA caused to be spent in its campaigns on urban air pollution, recent official findings concerning asbestos in public buildings. The Wall have questioned the scientific basis of regulations Stred Journal reports that an estimated$3 billion along these very lines. Here are some significant was spent last year alone toward removing examples: asbestos used in insulation and building materials. Asbestos.A Wiling of a federal Circuit Court of While many scientists and health authorities Appeals says that efforts to ban this substance say the type of asbestos most often used in the have been out of line with the scientific evidence United States poses little health threat, govern- -possibly increasing risk to consumers, workers, ment studies now show that the removal pmcess and schoolchildren. doesn't do any good anyway; in many case; it In 1989 the EPA issued a rule under the actually increases asbestos fiber levels. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) complete- Gerard Ryan, an asbestos expert at the Occu- ly banning all uses of asbestos, a move that pational Safety and Health Administration, found escalated concern about the safety of the sub- in a preliminary study that removal of asbestos stance, which had already been removed from increases airborne asbestos levels more often public buildings across the United States at the than it reduces them, even where the removal job cost of some tens of billions of dollars. The total is done as well as technology permits. Levels of asbestos ban attempted by the EPA was over- airborne asbestos remain elevated for several thrown in October 1991 by the U.S. Court of years after removal. Appeals in a hearing in the Fifth Circuit. (See "We spend an awful lot of taxpayer money [on "The Hazards of'Politica]' Science," CR, Febru- asbestos removals) without decreasing risk," ary 1992.) Rvan says. The court decision was a withering indict- Other studies by EPA itself have found similar ment of the EPA's behavior. It said the agency results—prompting agency officials to admit had presented "insufficient evidence" to justify a three years ago that ripping out the asbestos had ban. It was required by law to articulate a "rea. been a serious mistake. In one recent report, for soned basis" for its action but had failed to do instance, the agency found that average asbestos so. It had failed to follow the statutory require- levels had risen two years after abatement pro ment under the TSCA to adopt the least burden. jects at nine of 17 New Jersey schools. some regulation, failed to consider benefits as Dioxin. Further evidence that EPA initiatives May 1993 11 have been on "shaky scientific ground" in the cinogenesis, Houk said. In the case of dioxin, eyes of officials comes with the case of dioxin— studies of chemical industry workers with 60 and by extension a number of other chemical sub- times normal levels of dioxin in their blood stances widely thought to be extremely toxic showed they had no increase in disease. "The evi- In 1982, all 2,240 residents of the Missouri dente is that dioxin is not a carcinogen in the township of Times Beach were evacuated and the population exposed to lower doses. If it is a site was permanently dosed by order of the EPA human carcinogen at high-dose exposure, it is a because of traces of dioxin in the dirt roads. But weak one." Vernon Houk,M.D., the federal official who urged None of this revisionism has had any effect on the evacuation, now says the scientific data show the EPA's policy regarding dioxin. Its safe limit this was a mistake. for ingestion of dioxin remains at 6 trillionths of a Houk, then director of environmental health gram per kilogram body weight per day (tg/kg/d). and injury control at the Centers for Disease Con- Houk points out that it is now understood that trol, made his initial decision on the premise that dioxin is quite widespread in the environment. dioxin was "the most toxic man-made chemical Many forms of combustion and even heat treat- known to man,"even in extremely minute quanti- meat produce dio-ins. He notes that the normal ties.This view developed from accepted practice at daily intake of th( chemical by the average inhab- the time of applying a concept of "linear risk" to itant of an industrial economy ranges between assess the cancer threat of chemicals. This 1,000 and 10,000 tg/kg/d, or up to 1,700 times assumed that if there is a definable risk at a high what the EPA standard says is safe. dose of a chemical, then there must also be a pro- "In the last decade, the U.S. government has jetted lower risk at lower doses. spent over $400 million on dioxin research," Government researchers use animal tests to according to Houk. "That and other research has determine environmental dangers. In these tests given us the science base for good scientific judg- rats(or mice) are fed massive quantities of a them- ment. Now let us have the common sense to use it" ical until the animals develop cancer. From this, Passive Smoking. A case study of EPA's recent researchers designate a "maximum tolerable dose" scientific methods is provided by its numerous and use statistical scales to speculate on how peo- statements on "environmental tobacco smoke" pie might react at lower levels of exposure. (ETS)—the basis for wide-ranging regulatory One problem, of course, is that the huge efforts concerning smoking in public places. amounts fed the animals have no direct, or realis- As discussed in two CR articles on this subject tic, relation to what people normally might con- by Dr. Gary Huber, et al., smoking has long been tact. (The maximum tolerable dose for animals, the target of a "social movement" that has has been estimated to be, on average, 380,000 impacted strongly on the scientific-regulatory times the level used to assess human exposure.) activities of the federal government.'As stated by Besides the problems of translating risk in animals EPA itself in a recent report, its use of unusual to risk in humans, Houk said at a major environ- scientific methods on this subject—lowering the mental health conference at the University of Mis- statistical standard used to estimate risk—"is souri. the use of such an approach at the time based on the a priori hypothesis.-.that a positive "stood in stark contrast to a fundamental rule in association exists between exposure to ETS and toxicology—that is, the dose makes the poison." lung cancer." And "without evidence" this widely held belief EPA's basis for assuming ETS, or passive "determined that for chemically induced carcino- smoking, causes cancer is that many studies indi- genesis, no exposure is free from threat"—with cote direct smoking does so. The equation of the obvious consequences for chemicals that, at low two, however, ignores the fact that ETS is much exposure. might not actually pose a threat at all more dilute than direct smoking, by a tremendous As Houk noted: margin, and also has different chemical proper- "In 'chronic' feeding studies of laboratory anti- ties—as spelled out by Huber and his associates. mall at the maximum tolerated dose, more than EPA's approach, again, is basically that of "zero half of the chemicals tested (man-made and natu. risk": Assuming that, if huge amounts of some- rally occurring) have been shown to increase the thing are dangerous, then infinitesimally tiny incidence of tumors. As a result, these chemicals amounts will be dangerous also. have been classified as carcinogenic, even though Available scientific data, however, fail to sup- many have shown little or no mutagenicity and port this hypothesis. Almost all studies done on the evidence in humans is lacking." In fact, most scientists "now recognize that all . SCE 'PASS'" Smokt"t How Glea:?Muarj! - CR.July 1991 me 'PlSs, chemicals do not fit" this linear risk model of car- S'PWN me yo-1 M„n-CR.♦aldn957 12 Consumers Research effects of passive smoking show al&--no risk from quate controls, of screen out for variables.Even ETS or a weak relative risk ratio th mould not be so, the currently-cited . ,ults of this approach mnsidered significant if applied'to other subject,. yield an average risk ratio of only 1.19 to 1.81, This relatively low degree of risk was acknowl- according to EPA summaries of the material edged by Dr.Morton Lippman, head of the EPA In designating passive smoking as a "highly risk assessment panel, when announcing results significant risk," moreover, EPA also changed of its analysis.Lippman told reporters attending the "confidence interval" by which such things a press conference they had exposed themselves are estimated. As Michael Fumento reports in to greater risk driving across town in Washington Investor's Business Daily, "a 95% confidence traffic to attend the meeting than any hazard interval means there is a 95% possibility that from ETS. the result didn't happen from chance, or a 5% In such studies, a "strong" risk is usually con- possibility that it did. Until the passive smoking sidered to be in the range of five to 20—meaning report, the EPA has always used a 95% confi- the incidence of the problem studied is five- to dente interval, as have most researchers doing twee fold hi er in the group twenty-fold gh gr p exposed to some- epidemiological studies.... Yet in its averaging thing than in a control group that isn't Ratios of of..ETS studies, the EPA decided to go with a less than three are usually considered so low they 90%confidence interval." might be the result of mere variation, and a ratio of one would indicate no risk at all, meaning the subject and the controls were statistically even. "...Dr. Morton Lippman, head Yet EPA uses risk ratios of less than 3.0—aver- of the EPA risk assessment aging only 1.3 or so—in its classification of pas- panel,...told reporters...they sive smoking as a major carcinogen. An example had exposed themselves to is a study conducted by H. G. Stockwell, e1. al., greater risk driving across and recently published by the National Cancer town In Washing-ton i vi traffic to Institute (NCD, a division of the National Insti- tutes of Health, which says "we found no statisti- attend the meeting than any tally significant increase in risk associated with hazard from [environmental exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at tobacco smoke)." work or during social activities." The findings of the NCI report otherwise did not indicate risk ratios above 2.4 for lung cancer In effect, this doubled the chance that the of all types among women exposed to spousal numbers cited were merely the result of random smoking for upwards of 40 years. Only in the variation, but it also meant the data could be case of these 40-year exposures did ratios rise treated as more persuasive. UCLA epidemiolo- above 3.0 for any type of lung cancer. Despite gist James Enstrom told Fumento: "That dou- this, the publicized finding from this study is bles the chance of being wrong.... They're using that "long term exposure" to ETS increases lung it so they can get an effect. They're going all-out cancer risk and this is cited by EPA in support to get something they can call significant."Even of its conclusions- so, the reported risk ratios are weak- Concerning the 30 different studies on which Of interest is the question of what could hap- EPA initially based its views, Huber and his col- pen if these same standards and techniques were leagues note: "None of the studies reports a applied to other substances in society, many of strong relative risk. Nine of the studies report which have much higher risk ratios than does risk ratios of less than 1.0. Thus, the results ETS. For instance, EPA has previously said that from all epidemiologic studies consistently the relationship between lung cancer and electro. reveal only weak lung cancer risks for nonsmok- magnetic fields is weak because "the relative risks ers exposed to spousal smoking, with only six of in the published reports have seldom exceeded the studies reaching statistical significance; 24 3.0." Yet this is double the risk ratio for ETS. epidemiologic studies report no statistically sig- Using this approach would involve many other nificant effect for ETS exposure." matters as well—such as chlorinated water used To come up with its findings, EPA used a con- for drinking and taking showers. In fact, an EPA troversial statistical technique called "meta-waly- draft report says existing data provide "a basis for sis"—mixing together studies from the United consistent risk management decisions to reduce States and abroad. This has the disadvantage of showering exposure," and one government scien- adding apples and oranges, since not all the stud- tist said at a recent conference: "Let me remind ies were conducted on the same basis, had ade- you that the relative risk we are talking about May 1993 13 (from chlorinated water) is higher than the rela- ucts, is now the law of the land—a law, however, tive risk for environmental tobacco smoke." which was based in part on information EPA sup- Air Pollution and Your Car. The pattern of EPA plied to Congress. problem science, as revealed by official analysis, To complicate matters for automobile owners, is not limited to instances of assessing carcino- the prescribed methods for monitoring cars for genic risk air pollution have been called into question. One Environmental regulations concerned with Genera] Accounting Office report examining the urban smog, estimated to cost upwards of$12 bil- effectiveness of a new vehicle inspection/mainte- lion a year—and the impetus behind efforts to nance program found that 28% of the vehicles change the cars consumers drive and many of the tested "failed an initial emissions test but passed products they use—are also suspect a second emissions test, even though no repairs According to a congressionally mandated (and were made to the vehicles." EPA-sponsored) report by the National Academy "The results," the report concludes, "raise of Sciences, the scientific understanding behind questions about whether the...test procedure ozone regulations is inadequate, so it is difficult (prescribed by the EPA) is reliable in identif ang to know how best to combat smog in various out-of-compliance vehicles and whether in.rcu- areas, or even know how severe the problems rate identification of emission problems could really ere result in unnecessary repairs." (See "Are Auto Emissions Tests Really Necessary?" CR, Decem- ber 1992.) ...an EPA draft report says Radon. The examples could go on, but one more existing data provide `a basis for will suffice: The EPA, with the tacit approval of consistent risk management the new EPA administrator Carol M. Browner, decisions to reduce showering announced new "voluntary" building codes for reducing radon in the home. Builders and some exposure'.-. ' agency economists, according to The New York Times, "estimated the cost of new construction standards and testing requirements for radon According to the report, for instance, could be as much as $1 billion to$2 billion a year attempts to measure changes in ozone levels— nationwide." Meanwhile, the agency is urging the main component of urban smog—are ham- new home buyers to require radon testing before pered by methodology that does not account for they dose a deal. the role of weather in ozone formation. In any - Some see the agency's approach to radon fol- given year, for example, abnormal periods of lowing the same path it took on asbestos eight high temperatures will show a large increase in years ago. Then, the public was confronted with ozone levels, as warmer temperatures increase scary scenarios of children developing lung cancer ozone formation. from exposure to asbestos in schools. For some The EPA, which sets ozone pollution standards years the EPA has been touting estimates that and monitors trends, does not take weather into about 20,000 people may die each year of lung account in,its tabulations of whether or not cities cancer triggered by radon. It has been urging meet these standards, according to the report. everyone to test their household radon levels and This has led to the listing of cities as having "seri- to install elaborate venting systems in their ous" or "severe" ozone problems when the rank- underfloor areas if they find levels above a so- ing is unjustified. - called "action level" of four picocuries per liter of Dr. Kay Jones, who served for eight years in air. The agency recently made headlines with the the EPA as the senior scientist and research man- claim that there is a dangerously high level of ager, and whose research was cited in the NAS radon gas in 73,000 schoolrooms in 15,000 schools report, says "the EPA intends to enforce al] of the around the country. 'serious' and 'severe' classification strategies, The agency has already gone after radon in whether they are needed or not." water, which by anv measure is substantially less To do this, the agency first delays release of of a risk than indoor airborne levels. Through its data that show fewer cities fail to meet the smog jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, for standard, and then explains that the law cannot instance,.the agency attempted to force the town be changed anyway—having been set in the Clean of Hastings, Nebraska, to install expensive filter- Air Act Amendments of 1990. In other words, the ing equipment to remove radon from the water of policy regulations in scores of cities, controlling the towm. As the Times reports: millions of automobiles and other consumer prod- "But critics of the proposal, including some I ,agency officials, said the EPA's a ;ion to tackle down to low exposure I is in homes. the radon issue was an inglorious lesson in the A National Research Gounci report frequently dangers of using weak scientific assumptions to cited by the EPA in justification of its radon poli- write an expensive new regulation, even while cy concludes: "_.the committee acknowledges that many experts found the idea absurd." the total uncertainty in its risk projection (from Risk from radon, as with other substances miners to householders)is large." under discussion here,is also estimated using the Action by federal regulators on these and vari. "zero risk" approach, this time citing data from ous other assumed hazards—pesticides come miners exposed to large radon levels. obviously to mind—frequently are justified on Here too,the very authorities cited by the EPA grounds that a conservative, i.e. extremely cau- in justification of their anti-radon program tious, or zero risk, approach is most prudent. express serious doubts about projecting the expe- Oftentimes, federal law is cited as the reason to rience of miners exposed to high levels of radon apply particularly strict regulations. But when and other hazards in underground mines onto the basis for any such approach comes into ques- generally much lower exposures in the general tion from the authorities charged with protecting population in houses,schools and other buildings. public health,people well might wonder how such For example, Jonathan Samet and Richard caution can be serving their interests. Hornung refer to the "substantial uncertain- When policies involve costly solutions to poorly ties" involved in the extrapolation of risk esti- defined problems or even increase the public's mates from miners to non-miners. Samet notes risk, it would seem action by the federal regula- that the "exposure-response relationship was tors is not in the public interest. Only with a non-linear across the full range of exposure" of sound scientific base behind our environmental miners though the extrapolations used by the regulations can we he sure such regulations will EPA assume exactly that linear relationship help rather than harm. Missing Something? It's probably the issue of Consumers' Research that would help you fix up your home, buy the right dictionary, invest in mutual funds, keep up on the latest in nutrition,or save on your energy bill. It might be the issue that explains osteoporosis or the latest con game, or gives the facts behind government regulation or scientific theories that affect consumers. Or any number of,other subjects. Don't worry. On page 42 is an index of topics we have covered in the past year. Check it out. Then use the form below to order any back issues you need but have misplaced or given away. Each back issue costs$3.00. .................................................................................................................... Please send me the following BACK ISSUES Month Year Name Address Cite/State/Zip Total number ordered x53 Amount enclosed S Mail to: Consumers' Research, 800 Maryland Ave., NE, Washington, D.C. 20002 i May 19p3 15 E �°nmw � ° m- Hno mm� �w � w»m19 `D �Str' � m pow NEW 3dmzg a`q° `.9 'a �b°-' o�'S� Erm �Sa �5wc�21 m? mo°a'ma 0�30mc�"m°'� 5 n n U, 3 c 3 m m o l, � c o f]7. o :�.°'" A �. FnRd� �'s � cv° '< .. ° � 5'.G^mso.v'L�AOtn°- 0 o m�•07 �.m .+c�C e+m C G o �7�.� �G�q 7�T�� W `1 ? B.=•^.°°yyw `^m,$ ? �? c a � n arw?a 7E .e ao � VL m C FC'�s c'A O°°'O-,m n °p OC- a•r < 3 y ° ca y. c m9 � � mccmoa �_ � = 7 70C o AA� ° m wtBm 3 'C 1y O O O 19 O cc 7 cm cr co C 7 m c a n= y ° Co CL m •9 3 m a o ro � Of cr _ CL -i�-s£ oggs mm p A s 4 � Rr EGm -^ .. A Ft A sa a»a T� o � qo s•° m 3 $ ° o ° - m Oo mmw ^ w �•e , co om m O BA ^-O C.m 0nn0 w006O p � •a A N 6 E ^ w^d •OqG O� T�'A ° g5R �gNQ 8q �aom •• 3 m w F'wm _ e� gg of �sno iO 0 w Eg N O m doo° nnn'E n �c° 3mo 8zr as 5. 8 - c 'm � ^ %�° so A ;15.�' .8 C9 ^ Fv� :� ^"��v 8 6 �� ' e SS c � ^ wS1°"-3 9 _ 000 O C < w 6 O A�10 pal AT° mm ° omaA 9w S�� 90 f.a � � AOC ° R ' roa m c ° mmw E.°m'6'-•v^ �s^mm� gR � m> > 5 Qo. 9a - F � � o 'g -.�� � 3 C�{ N �/Y M Y,w�q) A a>•a any" � " " ��' ^w'. ° " do � ^ � ~ • <Y ELI T CCU y a,J,C. n � momsyom 'ooE3 cro� � ?mo 9 �1N ? m OOq T� O ° x < N NOG�.(�D pF � • /� ryRCy,SN �RNN � Sr�.O Wnd (D Sry �y�.�, ^mono-°°no £ r°o wmT� " 7� ��cioo O rr � o �°, � � =yam £ ^3mm > pw-^ � '. �w4wSwj t+ —Mr" 1 ,, oy ow �.^.'"° O mom yo'•o O+ ' I ' ga" OW -" = ]' dP0 rn o cn OD C z Z CO m m z D Z O 9;%-,kzCa1 -Oat Bz'cia� 7etzre w/ c7ocits, ,�nc. // -0,e60nt 0,iscle 1�71;71 g ZZi W,b,Y/utVton, -0.0 ?ooy6' (20-V Z97-6,Y&V Volume VIII, Number 11 November 1993 She s`lustrahan Verdict on EPA:S ETS Scw=ef Leland E. Modesitt, yr.' A recentC y-decided Australian court case has raised serious doubt, about a key conclusion in the Us EPA RiskA.ssessment on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS or 'passive smoke J. In September 1993, a trial court in Perth, 'Western Austrafut, considered whether the smoking affowed in the Burswood Resort Casino created a risk to employees' health or safety in the form of respiratory iffness or impairment. Despite the Court's recognition of moderate' levefs of ETS in the casino, the Court ruled that the Department of Health failed to prove its case, concluding that: `Whilst E`IS is annoying and of discomfort to non-smokers it has not been proved at the required .standard or at all, in this prosecution, that it is a risk to the health of the employees at the Casino.' Among the evidence considered and rejected by the Court was the EPA R,iskA.ssessment. rlhe Court scrutinized the EPA conclusions concerning respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults' and conduded: 17he results set out in the table and the conclusion (EPA Risk Assessment, Page 7.70) do not support the yrobabifitu of harm to health which is necessary to create the � affeged in these complaints.' The key points in this decision rest on the issue of proof. According to the Court, a 7isk assessment must prove a probability of harm to health. She Court also made the distinction that, while the EPA report stated that passive smoking had 'subtle but statistically sigrufuant effects' on health, the results set out in tabular and statisticaf form did not support that claim of risk In short,for a scientific report merely to state that ETS creates a health risk is not sufficient. Put another way, inadequate science should not be accepted as adequate in order to justify a pre- determined legislative or legal course of action. Science employed as evidence must stand on its own merits — and the Australian court ruled that the scientific evidence, including the EPA ETS "sport — was neither scientifically consistent nor adeq=te to show that ETS poses a health risk ' Cop(as of the Australian court dcdrion are available by renting to Federal emus, Inc. Former Director of EPA's Office of Legislation, a frequent commentator on cnvironm ntaf issaes, and reunify a faculty member at Plymouth State College. ANON-PROFFF(501(C)(3))ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO THE DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES. S.B. ranks first in crime A10/The Sun THURSDAY,May 5.1994 among state's larger cities the number of crimes committed CRIME IN CALIFORNIA i San Bernardino has more per 1,000 residents among Cali- The crime rate for cities over 100,000 population crimes committed per 11000 fornia cities with populations CHY 19neniz, e111R= residentsthanan otherof _ �� y over 100,000. The statistics, [¢- .� Ruwtvns• the state's larger cities,the leased by the FBI, did not ad- v San Bernardino 22.312 144 FBI says. dress smaller cities. "�Berkeley 13,060 127 In 1992, San Bernardino Oakland 44,027 118 res ByTERESAJIMENEZ ranked highest in the state and ` Fna 41,684 117 Sun Star'Writer 13th highest in the nation. !Sacramento 39,465 106 City and county officials said a _ Riverside 22.147 97 high crime rate hurts.It not only Chula vista 10.170 96 San Bernardino's overalBakenYreld 15.614 89 crime rate is down, but not makes people feel unsafe,it pre- L 312,790 88 'D. os Angeles B7 enough to keep the City from vents businesses from moving to ?,`It San Francisco 67.345 ranking first among larger Cali- San Bernardino, bogs down the a 11.Vallejo 9.278 93 forma cities—again. court system and gives the city a ,,y 12.Moreno valley 9,]95 badimage. X13.Long Beach 35,624 83 "We realize we're ranked Crime statistics show that the (,14.Salinas 8,424 83 pretty high,but there are a lot of incidence of forcible rape, rob- ?15.Orange 8,015 so things You can attribute it to— Ij16.Oman. 10.784 fiery,assault and arson have gone ,-..17.Modesto 12.820 78 the economy,unemployment," down in San Bernardino. The .'18.Inglewood 8,402 77 said Jim Hamlin, spokesman for overall crime rate was down '19.Pomona 10,180 77 the San Bernardino Police De- about 2 percent. '20.Pasadena 9.684 73 partment. But the number of murders 121.Concord 7.926 71 ?.22.San Diego 85227 71 The city rates the Fjghest for See CRIMFJAtp it 23 Oceanside 9,007 69 v 24.Garden Grove 9,550 67 s 25.Santa Rosa 7,698 67 26.Santa Ana 19,071 54 1 27.Oxnard 6,633 50 28.Fbcondid0 ,276 58 29.El Monte 6,127 57 6,391 53 -a30.Rancho Cucamonga V8,242 131.Torrance 6 46 ➢32.6anjose 36.]43 4fi 133.Glendale 8,216 45 a 34.Huntington Beach 8,122 44 X35.Fremont 4,538 41 w 37.Irvine 3.900 35 X37.Santa Clarice 3,226 30 38.Thousand Oaks 2,866 28 1;39.pulavalley 1,1t 9 population figures arefromthe '%'19W U.S.Census Crime: S.B. first in state Continuedfrom AL mining,we're improving the core rose 9 Percent.from 75 in 1992 to lem city;'Hernandez said. H2 in 1993. San Bernardino's crime prob- By comparison, Glendale, a le also agencies that serr ve the whole county. Rancho 0A :;.oily slightly larger than San Ber- Cucamonga is ranked as the 10th J ❑ear a had nine homicides last safest California city with a pop- year and ranked as one of the it uses the more than t system but safest places in the state. it uses the same court system as Hamlin pointed out the posi- San Bernardino,which brings in ;Hve side to then umbers. the most cases. "We're down 12 percent in the "There are some 30 murders last two we're o Hamlin said."As is pending, and a healthy percent far as we're concerned, crime is are tom San Bernardino;' said down." Jim Hackleman,chief deputy dis- Hamlin said more police offi- trict attorney."These me not just N cers are on the street and new cold statistics on paper. There techniques for catching criminals are actual victims and actual have been put in place. cases that clearly impact the Councilman Ralph Hernan- courts." dez said the city wants to fix the Hackleman said that Santa problem. Clara County, with a population © "We inherited this. Now we similar to San Bernardino Could- have to do something about a- tY s,can afford Bg judges,32 more We'll try instead into the prevents- than its Southland counterpart. mode,"derande of the reactive Fewer judges limit the mode," said said. amount of time spent on a case, Hernandez said u must be e- he said. ment duce and poverty must at re- "We are severely impacted," duced a cut the the crime rate. courts man said. nn limits the "We have to cut through the courts from being innovative and negative image of the city.There giving complete attention to a are new government buildings case." 44; -• 'l�a� tt�'s ��d� 35� � • I A A 1'C L Pi 2 TG A �X 4 . mm aF. ° vtoo. .� �"' �X•"yr+�r :m i o m p Fri 0 3 E n1Oa 8 c aka:Y> n g, - Pg.aar 4 Row S n Z m S A g C X � l4� _ '•C m Z °w Z n - � E 3 . zofDa3 inn GsF�. ^o 0 �_n�cn3 > n� !"f O 4, Stno nX•°, >y'g�E m ? ns� = F .^_ so°.i -noc . .. �Lg�odbaam � m .m°e °O< < n? E�• amS �� � �n � � Id � a tmr 1 CI � s� we oW � 1 , '� E ZI o Oo —'98 0 a Cu q6a 1 � m 6 O S g C O e m ..m o � Q .� '•.''•n n 'a' - a G G : m _n� On 6 O . � g yCryr ecA `"'y:Ov�..�' "• �@° i. o � O loan 293 . _- y e m la ° IE ". .rei6 °o ao5 Gnu ° �E5<' µms.• � Lam. � • ' a _ w° wSmn �3E.3o wmtlOH ne V� 3 cow �,3 n'o On -n,Wa o,= �a ?nw.�,n�3 � `� �nHOwTw 7? ry r9 a`m� 7Or gal W 3'75� an p,� 6 m°noo$6m ^o^ 3n °N ° m <IM a� x'- o.cm;SC m.. r onmma°mde3 � S'O. oo.y ^w � � nca�po d ^Eo.m � � O8om� Z G � K y �^•" Fyn mm 's m mm�•^yr N p,ww a°m a n' n 3 w w ,°. 'ana�C .n+.!• Q � S F—Q. E3 n� � �.w w•O o ' m_7?:�wn � P'�C< ^� • w ?A �n �=.7'. ^...^ y ?'. nCmn � S v � m� nAO•< :� �a3m"° wommS?' O.m a ? w7 - ASS G7ww ^ =nom mmo '� ?:� owgH � m �o9 w 'bom E �y �tW8y52m'R wwo" mN� .,F»° cn '3Wy� 3aN �3 w ° 7"y mm �S nRmdab » 9RmC � tD •Of � N:O Nm°OnN On 7k^o £ ay ^mmeawm ?; m7�y oan yo c $ 3�.g w + � <3 ano� -;P'�w °��n °Eemyti w Yr�ra i • nnr p7WTn! °° c 00° 75. doo.fm711:.' a° 7w n f�SwC� �j 1D �u Cw 7P'i < nm3 Gw oF •°o0e� �: rw EaC "p,m n -' ?� ?nom ^yf�a �mwy 'n° C.$wp A Sm 0 a 7w E £ m ?3w n 37d nm �`G< S+ O• m� " wwn a3nSwy'n<m��5'. S.w spE7`Ea�-�'.�n<.—a m �//�.��++ �°mn�cw an°.m-'•on�n O s n °'3w' g�c+ 3� n n 0 o min ° nb zffl� m ce4rn S n s 3a n'b'.a�.>rJ� .a:�B r£:;.G y'•n anaoa£; n Q 0 0 . »fil M w � s° 'D <� o n � a, EQ G^n w n n 'O •.w C ' Cm7 ^r= n�`°< m `a O '+ '""•« y�yl o w n1 'o mw3bo'0^ c �'� c3s� 5nin q 3� . Via° iS °S' oFO.nw^-,f 'w � $o = �:•tina^. .� ..owm3m > o s��'� ^ Sm S.°° °.dom ^E ot•--3 emiAS7 m n ygwa w 7n ° n Hn < n '!`<• A . S='aw < nm m•nmm 7 n 7 ri'- S o<Or�G w o v o w •G m `8+ n ado 6" n Ta wa3 Enw ^ w�3E_� n nwww � FAA CSS' ° °.. a w,7a yoo � � nA S .+n �^ '4Ew 7� qn a.°° w.� n'wa o 7.2 SS3 ^3o F-;; ca 21 owm°c^ •O � �a• �w3�°e � P'3o.°=° •O 2:S o < w. m ' ti� O mEar n m�'6c no:.,,3 ^wno � ra 3�. ° '� 3 c ^ O a a En Sy 5• eEn_S�ma a"' r Sv£ o. 7g fFSO ►S„+ �s W ^ ^fi HEN ° m ON�WA ntn SnnRi6 N w n c o 4 Rig m °°•._ 0 0 m, �; mno O.A. OV3 a3 5�xm7 a• 11.811g �7-ee ° w n ' n a n 9 ndEw oe @@O X� I� w namCQ0 WOE✓nS 7o O Er S w •3 AO iz O . m ' �B.an yn� S,ms g i C.a a n 3 n ,. cm £ �j fD n'aPo <°w rs wmy:A dy�` ° `° M '.gm 7n.o O. or w *9 G mow ^ p.7.. nn w .3� n °^ .o 0o En £ �'m�w �a,.n�.y w 7 �� n •°O 6 n �.� m £ t p£ F .7 0 '.r a oF^, n r' Ste. —�.0 U a 's Q•:'6m 01 y p.oy o:o � aS� o.m N7 ° xCN o � 30 '` _ 6tlq � m wN mm °. �yy. ftl � NSO T. O n o >• AC �'�'m° x ^ i7 Mry TfD IrrrnC Q c.1 2 S ryOq V• 5 m_ Pmm �`� �o mcC.iD mm C fp3 =r m° x.0 O xm Spy ° w ,mow � ;y9 �, PI N 0104 w C 19 CD AN 9 �w ^� pc£ mrPmpm33m . cn � myo aiN <'w � S yy �pRE6� ^�^o'um (7 V Q v � ma1 = O � RR �Cn < G n m yin mH < w'a< � 3op ° m c°° on'•w p� =fyD .+^^m � �^ CL CLO a f s • -moo_ a »mommm97o E.�m`< �. , `D OO '° ' yymo• w OR p pwpn`<tlapy n < w �+ n• ° ymaa .+m y^ow ° oowp "Mti nm ,� 3 A FE w M =,:M o 3'e. W ,. a wo, O ad e3 In F woo » FY ° e Nw y,w..m 0 `< < 03 R £ p'p'o4w �F� _wwy Do am ; o poa � w �n.o < p o;0 �19 ° now = m maw �w � mF ,0° £ nE owl Y1��( ^S^—o -;y' wQy hr CD NV N C+, H � di- N J O N 7 O m F CD N 6 0 n O N 3 3 � 2 Tort a�- a �Ss=4' -mi 3 , s c"3?£ H$ wmp,00 >: o � 3V1wv '_.00 A N 2la"< ^� rtomm �m ^wrt .w.Nrt � A:,p O'pm Cn � O .� C Qom^ ' C r N O 0 0' n"i^- -+n .3. m 7 m F O > 6 C - F n [+1 O 2 £ C n E Ow 7 'm+ n7 wC"OM Imp ^CCs ws; ^m o �^mo ° O-��wm ooma�n a°i3mxu ° vi IA fD (� mon no3 om " a.° � °c c5•d" ?.fDm..3oo mA �'g °'°w' n � �.oz 3 CD 0 N _H Z $ gig=o o°�° 3c ° m =°• ny ^ °�'l Q °fo d�sfD ^ Moog $ o .o oNOa'� (D ('I N O y m n Vl W S .°O. CD m pF 6090 S'o Om dot Sp pS.. m �1 �S E•mn6 � yAmwE N1 IS >>E'N ■=0 smc M'm °e°L'oy ■ E.o gc m 8'ancg 3 -.ot7>3o�ao•e °=3Hno� �"'NmH>•£ � dmH �'p•f0X O 0 . q 5,—s C cP a, O= 0, nof°5 oo3o=a3 �'<' 3c e �m oc me oaoc°g� S•� °y° c< .°+ � - S oc S nowca6 FAaa,= om � NoefD `y. c•cdd oO a °a 3 ro f°°1 F O a'mO dm 5°� °..,� N Fa g � =f°D d: •7o m�°� mo oo o p A ° ° ° m = yC F's =24 I A,r���P..O �Mm S O 2me O� co"oma�e o =.> > o°° m mmm cnmfmp0f �y d°-° ae � �c5 � 'p� OG � >w�'ew mm'm % yRID N °o RLA mam �ry^aT vm on tz ono° m,o� mce :t�5 s�.m C?Ro m°o `�° `'° �moma.e9 AHOO'°^ p, -° Z Emw den ^BT� . _ = M O O COO. m =mm ° a p moam r3g;;m0 ^-Ai wnmo td o Vrl ' M O° p �3 �omo 'o nOo n 0 o ncm+� m 9o £ md^ C=G roO� NwPm A O .O. dw d� � N � 9 l� a> cn� sn�ooy A-^TNO ��7o^�TFmmm^� I•� o' cmnsNH gm'y°mod mm �3, mmmm �m a, w'o oo �3m ,m^mE A �13 ca�� wm.�yc?'n � rt`a.N -.0'n <° mo W GomNSm A� w ^m 'O .n.mi Ao Mon � . cy' yow,c m °-�� 3?� �cm ... _9 r"oym eg ^•w,m .n = SD's 0nm < g.T 4040 ^� ComCO� • �o ?'1^N Fr o0e3n � � ma^rn o` S 't 6•t tp VO fD N O '] '� d (p BY ADAM®K PENN © O Puncturing political correctness College has become a `ridiculous battleground,'say the writers of this weekend's movie PCU' THE SCENARIO: College '^a -" atatistmovement ltwasweird: animal-rights activists I ®� You'd go to the cafeteria,and surround a dining hall to "Qg all the blacks would be sitting keep out other students because together. It wasn't because the cafeteria serves red meat. they weren't welcome—they They toss red paint(stands for were two of the coolest guys blood,if you miss the imagery) �I in the hall,and we all hoped on students who won't stop they'd sit with us.They were eating there.In retaliation,the _I under pressure from the black meat-eaters steal meat from _ Ij� community m show solidarity. the cafeteria and pelt the pro. - i The irony is that 10 or 15 testers with it.A particularly j}q years before,after the trials of obnoxious folk singer gets1�? the'60a,people came together zinged by a wad of hamburger. _ a lot more,and now things That's from our new movie, are reverting.People feel like: PCU, but in a larger sense it's "The idea that we are equal is a picture of what life on cam. a sham.We have to show that pus has become:the forces of in every aspect of our lives.' political correctness turning P.C.itself can be a form of college into a ridiculous bat- oppression—one that's better t reground. One unfortunate laughed at than fought When result is people gathering in Z society gets to the point where small groups based on race, speech is controlled,it's boring. politics,diet or sexual orients- We think it's turning around tion.More than ever you we a now People who are scared of segregation of blacks,whites, (. P.C.generally are knee-jerk in gays, straights. Republicans, - ?= the other direction.For a long Democrats,men,women... time,it was a fight between Of course,heated"bull sessions" versity in Connecticut in the 'g(h) because we are men is ridiculous. those two groups,the laughable left and raucous behavior always have was Psychoanalysis and Freud.The Or consider a sensitivity aware- and the reactionary right.But now been part ofcollege life.But people professor announced to the class, ness session during the first week P.C.'s outnumber non-P.C:s,and have taken it to an extreme where 90 percent women. that to study of school.We had to meet in the they're winning.The reactionaries they wear their cause: Everyone is Freud was a waste of time.In that main room of our dormitory and probably would hate us more than oppressed by something. Its one class,if you were a man and you role-play that we were gay. Every- the P.C.'s would.On most social thing to embram your different cal- spoke up,you were shouted down. bodv had to say: "I'm Ray. I'm issues,we tend to agree with most tune and dress and music and things Zak argued with a woman who attracted to men."One naive guy of the things we learned in college. like that,but it's another to embrace said:"You are a man.It is the fault came down late for the session,and What's happening today is that different senses of victimintirn. of men that women are raped.So all he heard was his roommate and the real world is taking a look at P.C. has turned into tyranny. It you have no right to tell me what other guys saying,"I like having sex what has been happening in this extends back 15 or maybe?0 yeall, to do." It was like sitting in on a with men."He's thinking:"Oh,my petn dish,so a lot of students are and things have gotten to the point Communist Party dogma session. God!Where have I emolled?" saying,"Yeah,this is teeth stupid: where attending college no longer This is not to make light of seri- The race issue,too,can get ludi. and that's all it will take to defuse is the way it was intended to be. ous issues like date rape and sexual crously convoluted.Some of Zak's the insanity of it.Once the middle The first class Zak took(we were harassment. But the idea that we friends in his freshman hall were was victimized,it had to end—not students together at Wesleyan Uni- are not entitled to our opinions just Mack,and there definitely was a Sep- with a bang.but with a giggle. CONTROVERSIAL MOMENTS IN P.C. HISTORY Spring1993:The LnNelsityaf Pemsyknnesorts Fall 1993:REnes steal thousands ofcopiesol a student PemsyKwe transfersto BostonunK,4yaflaafemale a,sci smary gamedi g,against a male sMent for calling newspaper at the Unhcsily of Mantand al College Palk, student complains that he harassed her for a date. a®oup of Week female students"water Wflaio"as may replacing them win rimes calling the paper moist By Richard Vega male now outside his*mtka,late at night BE scMd Fall 1993:MWh College in Ohio Dozens;a dating alleged Oet the remark was 2dalN offerme Ixe later code requanng that female students g'we erplicit verbal WHERE OO YOU 3fAKD OK P.C.?Has it I.roe ter,w dropped the dage.Penn now Says as initial harsansta cament fix emy Stage 0f amorous acuM with a mall. is R A W the Into Wllb be usa satema1,1W0 when policy P Ned counsel adllcV.e and will be reamped. WiAM 1991:A Student at Saimhmore College in osti•king01k Va a]]9.Rai Pin.xxral lettx 16 USA WEEKEND-."nun-I.IVW PHOTOGRAPH BY OANU STRICK.OV\Y d 0 Tobacco industry gathers support for ballot measure A8/The s., TUESDAY,May 10,1994 A The tobacco Industry says TOPIC IN THE NEWS Tobacco: Hosthty grow; It has the support to put a SMOKING - t:otNnwdlrom At era measure proposing - - point ofview,Bremberg said stateveldere regulations on the Score one for the snd lob- strictions. g sand king The industry's intense inter November ballOL by, which has faced increasing - The industry couldn't stop eat m California dates from th difficulties to the face of anti- passageed Proposition 99toettes passage of Prop 99, Of statngt ®okiugxntiment. � extensive lweowtl oft"MHa �. � boosted the tax on cigarettes analyses of state re The industry is one of the by 25 cents a pack and helped re- cords by the Institute for Heap Oy JAHE HMSNAW largest political spenders in the duce smoking here at a rate near- Policy Studies at the Universit S&xament°Bureau state.Its steadily increasing out. ly three times faster than the na. of California, San Francisco - SACRAMENTO—The tobac- lays have topped $50 million in none]average. which was funded in its work b: oe industry spends to win in Cali- less than 20 years,according to The industry also hasn't been tobacco tax funds. tornia, but it has achieved only one analysis. .., .able to Prevent a growing number The Tobacco Institute dis mixed success in fighting smoking That mane has ante to ilf communities from enacting Putes the UC studies figures,but restrictions.nn Mond for example,pro- statewide and-legislative candy- smoking restrictions or outright won't offer its own version. portents of a tobacco industry- dates,to Lobbying the t.egls- Y300 California peo tobac Findings of the studies in sponsored measure ro osin lature,to initiative battles and to have enacted some type ofLobar- elude: c atewide crooking regulations �ts against local smoking re- 'to Hontrolcomp led es,art�smin IS th the 1975-76 election cycle said they had more than the See fOBACCOIAS Ihg forces. the industry contributed only 600p00 signatures n ed to put $5,500 to legislative candidates. Nduatryfawsworatodskln pose a and together with lobbying ex the initiative on the November Its history.Story/AS But legislation to tai statewide ban on most work place penditures, spent a total of "smoking while Preserving local E2S5,000. T,/e' _, -____. ._._.._,, control has been stalled,and the ■BY the 1985-86 election cy- SUn ballot initiative, if it passes, cle that had increased to 4ould ensure smokers rights on- $790,000. But in 1991-92—after der a uniform state law that pre- Proposition 99 Passed—the in. empts tougher local ordinances. dustry's expenditures rose to$7.6 The successes have outraged million. .,},Pities such as Assemblyman Ter. 0 Between 198940 and 1990-91, ry Friedman,D-Los Angeles,the the industry's Political contribu- author of the major antismoking - lions rose 118 Percent,its lobby. bill. ing expenditures increased 13 "They spend millions and Percent ce local smoking to infu- spreadliestocontinuetheir prof- poll rtes p jumped 91-percent. „jffi' the expense of human Bv- ■ e n avert, tobacco interests GPs;'Friedman said. gave an average of54,255 each to : But advocates of smokers the 535 members of Congress vs. rights, such as Sen.Charles Cal- an average $10,402 each to the deron,D-Whittier,are fed up 120 California state legislaton. with the self-righteous attitude of Only 16 members of the state anti-smoking forces: "Isn't it just Legislature had not received to- -possible that those of the oppo- bacco contributions as of June 30, site opinion aren't entirely 1893. [( 0 e e :�:.3 0.0 'fit?, This emphasis on California 0 J 0 -.I }:3 Anewgroupisconcernedthat lawmakers fits the industry'c 3 9 smokers are los' their strategy to concentrate control of C' t; 0 0 C.l v ��' 0 0 because the tobacccco indus Chas smoking Policy in the Capitol.In. c C 0 0 :✓' 0 .�. C) `.� misman ed the 0 ht b focusi dustry officials said this only on insideg g Y makes sense since it would r - f.. C� 0 0 C `..� 0 C7 0 centers lP conics i "Pi mpower ride uniform regulations instPead E'' C" 0 0 0 0 0 0 `0- mthe public. of what Tobacco Institute f C' 0 0 0 ] 0 0 0 spokeswoman Brennan Dawson G "They never brought in local called a"crazy quilt of(local)reg- People. The industry always felt ulations for People to deal with." they could deal with senators and congressmen,"said Ginger Brem- "(California)ri e big constitu- herg ofthe National Smokers AI- envy m terms of business and cus- bon ce, anew group of business thmers,so It does capture a large leaders and former local pub8c share of attention which trans- officmis. lates into funding"to protect smokers' rights, Dawson said of "I think it's important that my the industry's interests here. neighbors understand and their The Associated Press eontdbNad to neighbors"understand the smok- misreport. 3 ul do � m N O � N K a M mmc • mn � m � H `.". T o•O ^°-, F'o o.m l V vJ O � � �.m A A a`` rt S^`< n '. m 'm+ L:O'vt ^�p C m � S m m S � 1� • Smcc C.Cm ^ o m � C �� E'6F ? o� n6 � mmmn mEm Vin• //� m �Fp CJ� rt ❑ n ° m rt 3 m 93 5 C `< m m m VJ O ��amc9 �°° o• �'i -'m '-? 3 �m Ta B � c° . 'o° O'm 'm w m Ortm p-nA E A m OG •O S»� IOpGn x'rt m � �o OOn Cimrt � <'9c A'm .'+� `< op Amcm aom • s� - o ^ d `D � m < o Ep -n�' Epm v � oa » � aa cm _ � � • Nnrtm » a EEy mow � vI 3 Ste' m aS0 � � ' �c5m � m ° o :° m m � 9 Amm a� ::.�°- crtm .e � m /� �• � S» rt ? DSO rtrt �L -°j � n ?m� ° � �9 8Sm.0 �'m vn' � ° xmm rtcn' a» o ocE � � mm mE � m � " r rt rt V p. pmm . Cn < mn S O p C Sa<J p �m a.am T C Mg ." A O T �o O• NF„ mw doa� ^+C m n m � R m � �om 'oa x ro p 3flQ C1° rt • n m � m p - m' m •9 m m.IE ,J � Em�mcm o y nm _•,m � s^ � m�m o m m �9 ipn mactiG m 5 W G o m » + 00 am 2 Dw.vtmvn News 11130193 Z Smoldng Ban Drives 29,000 room nights, 5544,000 in hotel bed taxes and $9.4 million in lost retail, rmtaurant, hotel and trans- Away Convenience Store ponation sales. Convention ring a lack of hotel rooms and the city's non- 0 smoking ordinances, the National Association of Convenience Stores has decided to pull out of Los Angeles for its 1995 convention. Debra Tucker,vice president of meetings and expos for the convenience store group,said that when she be- Q gan negotiations with the city to bring the 12,000-per- son convention to the newly expanded Convention Center,she had been told that six new hotels would be built Downtown by 1994. None of them have since been built,she said. "Nithout sleeping rooms for our people to stay in," Tucker said,"that's a problem" Tucker also cited the general decline in attendance by her group at West Coast shows for the decision to ® move the 1995 show to Chicago. The 1996 show will come back west,stopping in Las Vegas. But the straw that broke the camel's back,Tucker said,was the city's non-smoking policies,which pro- hibit smoking in city restaurants and the Convention Center itself Nearly 25 percent of all retail sales for convenience stores come through tobacco-related products, and such products would fill 20 percent of the convention's exhibition space,Tucker said. "We wanted those suppliers to feel comfortable while they entertained,"Tucker said. Both the lack of a large convention center hotel and the city's non-smoking policies have been decried by area business people,who warned that such factors would drive away convention business.There had been talk of building such a large hotel,but the city has not been able to find the money to get the project off the ground Michael Golluu,senior via president with the Los Angeles Convention and Yuitors Bureau,said the loss of the convenience store convention has cost the city Los Angeles,CA (tea Angeles Co.) Downtown News f (ar.W.47,000) l r IOCT 18 ?393 alUten s P.C.a. Lae rear Chinatown Restaurateurs '`nom ads 't ey complain • Ng,who is a non-smoker,only Choke on Smoking Ban his us ome s in �an e to his customers in response to their complaints is, It's the Are Custotners Drifting to the Suburbs, law,'and that is not muds of an oltcmatfve for she way'things or Are Compla ints Just Hot Air? - used to bed when non-su,okv,g sections were an part of doing by Toni Rge Birdsong lassines in Glifsnnia. II's sonhNhing Ch:natrnrn restaurant owner say was not Jimmy Chin,srsznagv of the Empress plvilion nesbunnt considered when Ion Mgrlu'smokirsgban wrnl into ef- nearby, agrees with Ng that costumers arc Marling toward feet in August. But, iumding to some Chinatown Monterey Park with nicotine slicks in tow.'I'd say we have res(auratnrs, the_repor jM-R— peniintagr of smnkets Ines abnut 70 pert of the husiness we uvd so here A lot emong.4sian-Ameriass of the lapamese is adding fuel to the fm tourists am not stop- cner the tobacco prohi- ping is Los Ang0ec bition in rcstauianZs - and that's too bad."( within I fj nsedea city 'Peoplejust adtenrt coining in like they used He added that a ma- timiu_` jo,ity of dos Angelcs' lLcm an no hard fig- to. Vicy are going to Monterey Park and Asian restaurant wmk- ures confirming if.c Alhalnbra because they have the Chinese ers, usually go out to comphiuts,but lack of call tcjsdau at China- solid swiatics on how restaurants and they can still5rnoke there. town restaurants on the vd Chi g ban has e(- Tl1C eo lC oln TTalw Hong Kong nd (heir day'otf.FAMss ftt(rd Chinatown's nss- p p �+ g g pavilion, Chits says, taurants does not China—they all smokea lot. Mien they used to ester to that dsange the declining s s n niche of clientele on numbers at the end of see the no smols"ing sign they eortlplaim weekdays. However. the month for Tommy —T'orrinly Ng, Owner of Golden Dragon I— tl'— or'work- Ng, owner of Golden _ em seem to be break- Dragon restaurant in restaurant in Chinatown ing their routines for Uinalown. Ng cites a the luxury of a 45 percent drop In busi- cigarette with a reseal. ness since the ban look pxl.Ng Favorites eBed. - railed petition 'Pes>♦,fe just a 't coning in like they used tq' Ng said. attempts to roKind the rnsasure have Idt a statewide bah ai 'They art going to Moraercy Park and Alhambra because the only hope for Los Angeles restnuants hopingto level the they lave the Chinese restaurants and may.an still smoke mnrprtitice pLiying fir)d,tlsry say.Chiu slated strongly that tlKm.The people from Taiwan,I long Kong and China— Continued on age a Vl.0 19-01 IuL lulw rrm nu. u r. uz -- ]l kr I S t unit Vura, Sill oer L r 'L mannger of Tile Gn5(irmeJ from pAgr fi Clay an hlwp All the 1 d 1)c the - unJuxrkllakeaA csrrylhin 1)r WilsAire C.or- p ifew R nmhinR"al' rider, says he r... Ssemr Ntxeio, • = 1T owner and nun.'go, of Little IsasnS notloed any Sys 11rinl in Chlnmown• $in yr Irxi Chan �._'. Soya Ihai 111'tllislrlr due' rM1 p hallo. fond,his ills 5111 ...gtall! from p011dn 0p llx hull buses lowed uutsidc pa- g Asian ruStrlmers 11)10 his banqucl Iiv pro(uhly helps srxnll{-_rxa unlit now,Si:xe Ule hlq Ilte brssGt are his case. "1 al) _ rolling 6y. 1 Jm1'I know whole Ihey are going, Against smoking ■ren7 corning here;'Nuccio said."ra'en"'y bll( Ihey myself and f - - arrumlinRhr6alfASmuds.• rcgulaa didn'l s A case in Pninl is I °PI nsc Ur wo b e MCiuk dedieiled rus ban. So, " Co" - tnnnn.a couP!c that has Ix'rn eal"19 as Utdr , flu yrers. CO nlPla inrd a about not bring "T," usJ In wore in ever Y. able to smoke a work,"N,,ccio said. "liul the ) week like clock Im months ago t '{ Film (be)' Q)m romix "'Inns Imekes and N-•-h tv,,fl P e. one wens 11 usher Iban (rrnnry(7 I.,ma.ma.., rhr he Ibe nrxl w'crk Ibc lhrr else." Iha6 nodling bas 1;nprel/Lrdbnn rlalmlmnrin she ran c1) Y gn 'nlnervl:nc dsr s1)that elun cll'"m"n,s0ls ha III-Wiled.zo IOY her dinntr and vs:nke" yrd;'bruid. •IhCSn1okil: t: It is possible -�I`Orrd,op.,pin crrsro.nrrs (� kkkJJJ Nurlrcl Ills R Y11 Ia1 Those N1O1rrr o/r(¢smaking bon. on paper 70 We to see 111e no-srxxkio 1)r who Slid I Ixrt jnf 'gly'a",he upholds ii m the knt, ° kC'the ordinance is closing C;1linalrnvn business roll:hu a she 1 Doter(-;'Ihrk to his Wag p' r Wing squirt u1) s[fa maY just be b nlsdng I l uq so rkmsr pm Plc Silo Iigill up. P7 smell,acronh11 r I smv:r "C)h yraL, we to Join, all w• C.hmrsr resuuran�eOnt suburb.(-Von AlAgnllar thing;he laughed. (' c can kl enforce this while Anokin g ix allowed at the Qlinesc Frsteunnl Umvcvcr, 111 are lhruc in f.Ilinatm"And other )larh0r Villa, Paris of Ouwlllavu who to'his business is down abrxn I%t cut Haim Ibr I h1)' IOrntysA day. hu'iurxs• Kim Yuji, Inana not lure Prnph h:wt not stn r Rv u( Yang y simc tie hArl , fAClrihs Jrn� has intrcat'l al all R ❑lvw'.as s b"Onso list y enjuljd�rifnuduenhng his rcstaoranl sxm (or rtut is Ile econoni kl'cdt nod Ux•nnh. enu,kr lnnit S @cl and can hnld°I'(1° 1 n: ltic nxsl. Yung said. Y out a srnukiny.tun," "7br smoker'keel'wining. -rhex•'nn Ilul that ralill"Ir dm it P0 oulsiJc 10 amukr. It's ou big 1 grs uP.11x1 ing a smoking han in M1)lerc ccP Wiling frpm h•ar• like the ban slid wisb that rem drat. I dnn'(rell,l)' cent of our ulA°mfrs arc Y Park. "Osrr 70 per- 1larrn'I nntioed Y cih')red is bill / Asian and I'd sav canoe u(il,`Yun said. who 11.15 xfn. we nlu�be a!rtem of the°I Jon't srn°kr. Q f cnulsr,rw Il •0 I t . Ins aid f n a snlokin ban h e are dump wr mild corn rats there's d.vayx Use nmrc 4lsinrsx:• ss U N 9 o yA d C o y Y A U) p > F > A ❑ �/ R G YL y ° .° m = � •� C 7 u Q 77 • � � Y t� 8 d a 0 Y 0 y 4 .N G � y�y � mG�G � XA ■� N C A C 7 7 L q ..a $ C d p G y . ° a 3 Y uE 'u3 era3W A Q 0y a6 `, ■�' y 0. PC Y o A p ,v d m Y C fd v C C 3 epy Coy 0 (-0 6 � waaVo o C FU y � C p yC7 Ems., •- 6 rJ h G A C y C O a Rka R yoz .. cn ° m > Q ao3 y ` ° Ap Z 1 � u of ° -e e� ,e °/ v " A 0 33 :30 < m� r4-0 tn �+ / 0 :2 f � -2 °Y' E ma 3 a COMMENT S IKE i Cigarette tax increase may backfire Yet be rlmowledgec that "orgmuzed agneettee can belp dismurap mooting. Proposal to finance health plan crime is already mvolved"in amwteliag pert mom a °rte are ma,;noed that ognrenet Eom the US. to C—Ila. aggoman duration about the huarde would create new set of problems Fo a go W�Qa are at+ady muutu. dmootisg cwoneblemntroleaawl e e BY Its Eimberg quenen are almoat attain m kedude fe:lmg popular Cwmadian heads to ap =I mss liFt up.propems b help Pes dent Clinton propoaeF m avb- huge Iowa in to revenue and the Inure s aha t d that country's 92 billion tbmo put and • ben oe iprtm darns??i f ranee the •dminiae.e. veation d s whole new eruoe problem, black motet m smoke. advmtidag world do 4 more m beak ton's moron of heslthart reform by In Camad. ga erament.r guhed tw Elm a this nountry,whore agderite behareol death grip ar the 4vee d bluoth raie'vtgtg the federal to on agerettat from O� m m P , an rehtively rbeap at around i1 m 12.p11 Amerjayg_ 24=.Iu m i133,an invrase of 99 amts "Emokiug an kill you." Nonetbeleea, a W-k and ass presently rmmt for •perk To pev fm this maithar-fish-nor- 9mare+d the MIN Ries NOT would it be wile m shoe alerted foul approach m the problem,Rep.Pete Aims Mmirlu 7aan Cnretien eentvtly �'�0let a tdicsb m b®me too dependent an Stark DDsUmd, would add i125 io ano,_A with 'lapel" his goeem. tbe)It"Ab*I become an attnetive tas m fund tome u III tun m e pad of moots,boosting aotnt s ivteation m roll heck•i3.f4pe- �d eriminah.Robber who prq® cost d m le r 6eatlh are. the federal kvy m 7149. pack to that code aigmetis m Gut amounts Kars" where only and Politic and �f� tu«,and The eukommittae an health d the amok the mast expmdee in the weaLL will lake �e Of copy e"hsd,nEm r revenue from thus merI a- It lid to an "atmor:mtpI pest 1.Of b. l$1 d th the Hops a and Mama Committee his sehicb Lave•street value dabout ilo0. lily declines with the popularity d CImmd a dbent mcreue-M top of 1I Two d Fm LI bleak market David Drawer.• ®otiag they War Leon Imking for Clif Rep M 99 .Art-wi,1.73 mot are now "I C�emv �ehh mocopve m boost tabs®consumption ath. I U Rep.Mike Andrtwa,ette W were mooted the Ca when are mntri, tiara wholeule that•South San f}ao- v than W for new taus raters t be 6avt his way,the-an 92e to would �y'and ong���$4.5 tm Andy and othao mmmdltin End Im aomytable than a o Ild"sin" h inmeased by {2 - m u� • park tee "It mats t24 billion e a to baro a thayer.and a o,for manse alms ere, to hi Northers CWd yet m rake are acnully 6tmme°beeper and d tier fm happen Bbudden m think what would Doing t,da are reform rights he ofpecryle whoge;sick tom emoting"Le Canadian youngdm - and they're happen ifhighv tasraise the slue da Ln A=,I ly points out. mpplid by the same uimimale who mad, arm by m a aevm times deliia�that s ch a vast undertaking; 1 71e impute is era-imentimd and Mat drug. wLisl el and goes If Minton"91 w mIowase rams can be financed m the beds ofamokere, politialk A"dive. It would Meant in thb muntry. the dfioel her iB to pass Dresser alnilats that a eagle and we will end up mereb trding one set t mooklre to pay for much of the solution °Died by Jack Morin,spokesmen fm truckled Of tigeeertet will he worth of problems for another. to aproblemthe) helpedmeste - the the US.Juror Department',BuI of *M,000 "Alotdbadthinpanhappen bedvnpuy of America's health are Alcohol,Tobam and ilnarma.It=1 fm that hind d money,"he uya"It's deliver'qry ema. happen hen,he acys,'Ym1m mho®Y Frog m ge( wi7L•• lro Cuenherg w editor and meumaiat Unfommate4,.the unintended comae- made /o. a wnUy awoke den!N liuermort, illegil." Within limits, inmeesiag the eat d u a rtmeerei smoker. x � ' H Where there's smok pork-barrel e there's a ar end for a minute that you her. That would mean S67 million less• are nd legislator — just fore DEBRA J. SAUTQDERS for health care. minute; I'll try not r make Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, D-Sac-. this too painful. you are given As state revenue continued to dry up, ramento, released a list of some expen- e choice. You can spend Gov. Wilson suggested spending some ditures funded through the Proposition ;peed S 5, 00 on a " care, or you can education money instead on such ser- 99 education campaign.By the end of tffe. :peke nd at 0 on a "Ski Tobacco-Free" vices as erinatat care, health screen. list,you feel that You've earned a ci veekend at Kirkwood hfeadou•s in Ta- p y gB•- toe. In a nutshell, that is the choice the 1ng, and immunizations for poor chil- rette,even if,like me, you don't smoke. Legislature and governor have faced dren.Legislators voted to transfer 9per- In addition to the ski weekend, the list since 1988, when California voters ap. cent of the 20 percent to health care in includes a $200,000 "tobacco-free chill: proved Proposition 99, which increased fiscal year 1991-1992. This year, non- lenge"race-car event(no doubt because The tobacco tax to 35 cents per pack. smoking programs got 16 percent of racing is so healthy), as well as spend,- Being politicians, they have funded Proposition 99 funds.. ing to sponsor a dance and rap contest, By all accounts, including the state promote an"Adopt a Smoker Club,"and both. But expect more taxpayer-funded resort weekends in the mountains and Health and Welfare Agency targeted in develop an antismoking skit for restaa less health care for the poor if a lawsuit the suit,the Proposition 99 anti-smoking rant employees. filed by Americans for Nonsmokers' campaign has been successful in reduc- No doubt, boosters believe in the. Rights and the Just Say No to Tobacco ing the number of smokers, even if not above efforts. But when a state's coffers- Dough Campaign to claim more money fully funded. The question is: Is there a have been devastated it's better to spend . for anti-smoking programs succeeds. law, of diminishing returns? Would the money on health care. This isn't i Some background: Proposition 99's spending $105 million this year, instead You-can-have-it-all year. If Americans authors contorted s formula to spend of the$67 million allocated,to tell people for Nonsmokers' Rights and Sae No get F something the),already know mean few- their way,there will be$165 million less= it teasure's 25-cent-per-pack tax in- er smokers or more pork? And remem. for health care. C) ,e. The formula dedicated 95 per- Beware of the initiative that canes cent of the money toward hospital and out spending for itself. Proposition 99 hysician care of indigent patients, 20 When a state's coffers also dedicated 5 percent of its revenue percent toward non-smoking education have been devastated for research.Oink oink: San Diego State programs,and 5 percent toward wildlife University got S2 million to test whether- habitats and parks. Chalk up the park its better to spend the orthodontists can prevent tobacco ose, money to log-rolling — away to woo money on health care. and the University of California at San votes and support for a measure by s rove — as if Francisco of 5528,19? to throwing gift spending toward other This isn't a you-Can- no one knew—that smoking is assoaat• causes have-it-all year. If ed with wrinkles. Proposition 99 allows legislators to AlnerlC$ns for The anti-smoking corner rightly notes change that formula by a four-fifths vote that the tobacco companies spend a for-. _ of both houses of the Legislature if the Nonsmokers Rights tune luring kids into smoking. But when change is 'consistent with its pur- and Say NO get thir You see where it would spend tax money, e poses." Largely because of the reces- you've got to wonder if the anti-smoke sion• there hasn't been a year in which way, there will be crowd has money to burn. education programs received all of their $165 million less for - mandated 20 percent. Gov. Deukmejian oversaw the first transfer from the fund. health care. Ms. Saunders is a syndicated columnist. THE 111r— = INLELANEw- R F. . Box 963, Montrose, CA 91020 • (818) 249-8090 The Foothill Leader, Wednesday, Oct. 13, 1993 A-2t .Battle lines drawn in Smoking war If, ou believe nonsmoking `V - ' Y g It is contrary to individual freedom. tsdvocates are formidable, try facing The reason why I cams to America _'down the street-wise toughs of the was to escape:the parallel to what is invokers' rights faction. goingon here noaL_' -:� .; !f Cleaily war is on. On this side a hu . ' Meuksch, with Robert Merrell of dug into trenches, is the Blue Hard Sacramento,has formed Californians Hat nonsmoking brigade; over there, for Smokers' Rights, a lobbying I facing the enemy from foxholes, rs group that claims a 7,600 member- the Red Hard Hat smoking crusade. ;• I i i i ship.Dues are$5 a year;money from `Both groups snipe, curse, sneer, and tobacco interests is not accepted. hurl propaganda by the ream. It's Such groups are forming all over that intense, really. food, drink my booze. Then one the nation, he claims. One is the It used to be clear-cut. The non- says, 'Anna, give me a little room, American Smokers Alliance of smokers were far ahead,especially in will you? Your smoke bothers me. Bellvue, Colo., which cites a report California, leader in the ban- "Dumb I am,but stupid no.I have in the British Medical Journal that cigarettes movement. Nonsmokers rights,too. f pay taxes.They say you smoking may .delay the onset of are still ahead, but their opponents smoke,your children come out cross- Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases. are gathering force and making head- eyed and skinny.My first one was 10 Thus, the smoking crusaders have way, individually gathering angry pounds, a big hunk. Not cross-eyed. powerful propaganda, including the brows as well. They've been de- I smoked over 50 years. I don't get economic effect of a smokeless na- graded, cursed and ostracized. Now sick. My lungs are perfect. I got two ti gn, but it probably is a case of too they've launched a'counterattack. stainless steel artificial knees, but not li ttle too late. The momentum is it- Pushing them over the edge was . from smoking." the Clinton proposal for a 75-cent-a- Her husband, Otto, 68, a non reversibly toward non-smoking. _ pack tax increase to help finance the smoker, believes the antismoking Smoking advertisements long have proposed medical care . program. drive is similar to the brainwashing been banned on television and at Even without the added tax, smokes Hitler's forces exercised over Ono least a dozen large newspapers have are $2.50 a pack or more. Meuksch's native Austria, from dropped them since the U.S. Surgeon _ 4'. But it's not just cost. Smoke which he fled in 1942. General's 1964 report. So the party crusaders cite freedom impingement. "What are you going to do with the seems over. But don't tell that to "I give a party," says Anna 50 million smokers in California?"he smoking ' zealots. Perhaps their Mueksch of West Hllyywood, 74, a asks, answering emotionally, "Same counterattack is really a desperate E pack-and-a-half-a-day Tareyton 100s thing that Hitler did with the Jews?" rear guard retreat action, yet they j -smoker who left Estonia to escape He's warming up. "Helmet laws. seem to have plenty of breath left. ■ Russian totalitarianism. "I invite Seat belt taws. Red meat not good for Arelo Sederberg is managing edi- people to my backyard. They eat my you. Eggs no good. Coffee no Rood., for of The Foothif/Leader. 1 cL The stow but sure march of totalitarianism hilosopher David Hume said, ••well-regulated militia." People with. "It is seldom that liberty of little understanding interpret that as' any kind is lost all at once." meaning the National Guard or some- Let's apply this idea rights,our other government organization. Second Amendment rights, But here's how George Mason, one of but first, let's talk about anti-smoking our unsung framers, responded to the regulations. question, , I ask,sir,what is a militia? The anti-smoking campaign started Mason answered, •'It is the whole peo off attacking private property rights, ple, except for a few public officials." with eminently reasonable pleas like re- WALTER R7LLIA9IS James Madison said, "Arms in the quiring no-smoking sections on air- hands of citizens may be used at individ- planes. ual discretion ... in private self-de- Emboldened by that success, tobacco fense."George Washington said,"When prohibitionists successfully campaigned against our Second Amendment rights. firearms go, all else goes ... we need for laws banning smoking on flights un- The next strategy is to call for livens- them every hour." The framers of our der two hours, then a ban on domestic ing of gun owners. Then we'll see a ban Constitution knew well that an armed flights altogether,then airports, restau- on keeping a gun at home, requiring citizenry was the ultimate defense rants, and buses. Now, they're working guns to be stored in a government ar- against government tyranny. to have smoking banned at all but resi- mory. Then a ban on private ownership As for crime, Thomas Paine said, dences, and later, no doubt, they'll go of guns.Like the tobacco prohibitionists, "The peaceable part of mankind will be fter residences.Their agenda required anti-gun advocates recruit what the overrun by the vile and abandoned while a propaganda campaign to dupe the pub- communists called "useful idiots" to they neglect the means of self-defense... lic with lies and distortions about some help them create and spread false and arms like laws discourage and keep the of the health effects of smoking.Had the misleading propaganda about you. . invader and plunderer in awe. ...Horrid tobacco prohibitionists made their full "Xvilliams," you say, "aren't you be- mischief would ensue were the good de- agenda known at the outset, they never ing a little unfair in assessing the good prived of the use of them." would have succeeded in even getting intentions of people like Sarah Brady?" Our founders knew that governmenU no-smoking sections on airplanes. Try this. See whether the anti-gun peo- was the primary source of evil and op- This is precisely the strategy em- ple would agree to amend the Brady bill pression. Today's liberals wish to dis- ployed by the anti-gun lobby members. with a sentence that goes like this: "Nei. arm us so they can tun their evil and They star, out with something emi- ther Congress nor state legislatures oppressive agenda on us. The fight nently reasonable, such as a five-day shall enact any additional measures against crime is just a convenient ex- waitingperiod before you can take de liv- regulating the private ownership of cuse to further their agenda. I don't_ ery of a gun and restrictions against guns." The anti-gun people would go know, about you, but if you hear that military automatic "assault" weapons. ape, and for a very good reason — it Williams's guns have been taken, you'll People who object to such a "reason- would threaten their ultimate plan to know that Williams is dead. able" policy are made to be seen as ban guns altogether. unreasonable and reckless. But the The Second Amendment gives us the waiting period is just the opening salvo right to bear"arms in order to have a Mr. Satire writes for The New York Times. ' r Orange County Register April 7, 1999 Where there's smoke there's fiery discord 0 ur opinion leaders never look Perhaps,but it is also a victory for those - uglier than when they are in (and they ere legion) who enjoy feeling •'• full cry against some newly - morally superior to other people; for tagged villain, and they are those timid but resentful milquetoasts ' at their very ugliest right who have always longed to pm their; now in their assault on smokers. thumb in the eye of their more self-as- Lei me declare my bias at the outset.I sured colleagues but didn't quite dare; smoke four or five cigars a week, and - for every hypochondriac who gets a neu- .. . enjoy them enormously. I understand rotic frisson out of the latest cancer the medical risk involved, but at 70 1 WILLIAM RUSHER scare; for the business-bashers (fresh :•.. consider it just one of the many that from their battles with the lumber indus- ,:•••• flesh is heir to and well worth runn'ng try over the sported owl) who love to for the satisfaction they give me. - bate such sure-shot villains as "the to- I do agree that smokers have no busi- among nonsmokers, as well as 300,000 bacco industry." ness inflicting discomfort on nonsmok- respiratory illnesses among children. The real trouble with smoking tobacco ers. Not long ago a friend presented me As London's The Economist noted, is that it isn't fashionable any more in - with a particularly fine stogie and we "Whether science supports such esti- the elite circles that shape public opin- both lit up— just before being ushered mates is hotly debated." But it doesn't ion.It is largely a bourgeois habit nova- `• into a small conference room with half a matter: The anti-smoking brigade now days,and,accordingly,fit to be dumped dozen nonsmokers. Before I even real- has a brand-new weapon in its hand,and on.Alcohol is far more injurious,both to ized what was happening,we very near- it is wielding it like a snickersnee. With- its abusers and to those close to them, ly asphyxiated them all. I still cringe at in a year or two, it seems likely that but you won't hear any clamor from the the memory. smoking will be banned by federal law in elite about eliminating it from Ameri- r .,• If that was all the current campaign every building open to the public, any- can social life because they enjoy it .;;•s against smokers was about, there'd be where in the country. themselves. (Besides, they are the cul- no argument. But there's much more Is this a case of virtue triumphant? tural heirs of the elite that opposed Pro- , going on here, as you shall see in a mo- hibition, back when the bourgeoisie fa- ment. First, however, some history. vored it.) - For many years the government ap- The real trouble %%Ith There is a happy medium in this mat- parently assumed that if it could just smoking tobacco is ter of smoking, and I would like to think spread knowledge of the possible conse- that we might, as a society, achieve it. quences of smoking widely enough that it isn't By all means let the government contin- (through warnings by the surgeon gen- fashionable any more uetowamusof the dangers.Make sure, •� eral, etc.) people would quit smoking. too, that smokers do not heedlessly in- Lots of people did — but lots didn't: 50 in the elite circles that flict significant amounts of smoke on million Americans still smoke. Evident- shape Public opiftion. those offended by it. But then let those ly there's a limit to what you can per- who enjoy smoking,like those who enjoy suade some Americans to quit doing by It is largely a drinking, do so without being made to threatening them with death. bourgeois habit feel like pariahs.Which of us, after all, So last year the Environmental Pro- is qualified to cast that first stone? tection Agency swung into action, offi- nowadays, and, cially classifying second-hand smoke as accordingly, fit to be a health hazard and alleging that it Mr. Rusher is a syndicated columnist and a - causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year dumped on. senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. ' M4 3 = Jc U) N t0 {0 A 1� �Ym°TwO ��EHC.pw� aw y.° rn m wa.,� y3 n`eDY Fred ° SG.O.d ° y ° l7 I1Y r Ow Qw y9ctdm° 3 < ?mm�cmaCC z yY wo QMamn �mco � OO ° c['] � ? �Tl I '° dYw C a° »3anmc°,3fDy�7mF � c°o N0. ��0.7p 4fD 3 ^G O[0./�O G O30^ C r d O bi y mpO^mO ffo�t $ a $ m ° dm m�Fy qs$� � »o•3 � aT�Fm � �D A SO O .. O ^ 5 $ moo 0? m mg m a,° mm^ o G ti w m N ►y N A Fry S '° mn o Go YT$„ tiYtD rNY dS m '° O �' wT� X?c ts Yay O° moo £ kwon ° F�.Y a Coln �d.,a+oc mq'w�O� Ccso anm OCZ .__.- - - - - zp7 � m x z D O Z 0 The orange County Register HEALTH /anti-smo[:ing event a bust MEETING: Cal State said Thomas J. Whitfield, Cal Fullerton students i - state Fullerton environmental CLASSES THAT HELP g health and safety officer. YOU KICK THE HABIT Dore a DatioDally tele- "That's pan of why I'm here. To �7Sed Wk. Linda out." Experts say the best time Linda Stark, city editor of the to stop smoking is before you By MICHELLE NICOLOSI campus newspaper, said people start. If it's already too late The Orange County Register didn't come because "I would for that — if you're addicted think the people a ho don't smoke and want to quit — call the FULLERTON—From a coon. probably don't care, and people American Cancer Socie at strous projection TV' Surgeon who do smoke don't want to be (714) 751-D441. ry General Joycelyn Elders and a told to quit." The society offers astop- panel of health expects boomed Outside the hall,faculty smok- smoking class called Fresh into a nearly empty meeting hall ers banned from smoking inside Start, six ti-hour classes over Thursday at California State agreed that reaching kids with three weeks,taught by ex. University, Fullerton. the message is key. smokers. Cost is $25; scholar- hfore young people are smok- "The best is never to start," ships are available for those ing,they said during a nationally said Virginia Scheel,a professor ` televised conference on the of human anatomy and health who can't afford it. smoking problem. We must tell promotion. "They've got that The next class starts April 4 them the dangers, they said, but right," and takes place 7 to 8:30 how can we get them to Listen? How to convince kids of that? p.m. Mondays and Thursdays. Apparently, inviting students By, making smoking look as un- For information on free to the event — which also fea- cool as possible, they said. quit-smoking classes,try the tured an anti-smoking video "I think they're doing a good Orange County Health Care game, performers dancing to job so far,"said Sandra Sutphen, Agency Tobacco Use Preven- "don't smoke" rap tunes and chair of the division of criminal tion Program at(714) S41- anti-smoking message movies— science and criminal justice. 1444, or the hot line for was not the answer. "They've made us pariahs. Spanish speakers, (714)834. Although the event w•as an- We're smoking outside; it's col2192. pounced in two newspapers—in- I don't want to be here, smoking For more information,try cluding the campus newspaper m the rain." the American Lung Associa. — no one besides the media, the 11' SURVEY: O.C.youths smoke at a lion at (714)835-5864. dancers and the organizers higher-than-average rate.Page t showed up to listen. What does it take to interest young people in the healthful message? "I don't really know," Ordinance No.6548 Introduced by Council Member Holden AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASADENA REPEALING CHAPTER 8 .78 OF THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.78 RELATING TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT The People of the City of Pasadena ordain as follows: SECTION 1. This ordinance, due to its length and the corresponding costs of publication, will be published by title and summary as permitted by Section 508 of the City Charter. The approved summary of this ordinance reads as follows : "SUMMARY The purpose of Ordinance No. 6548 is to amend the city' s current smoking regulations to prohibit smoking in enclosed restaurants, with a one-year phase-in period to include bars within restaurants . After one year, smoking shall. also be prohibited in dining area bars and attached bars as defined in the ordinance. Exempted from the ordinance are free-standing bars and entertainment facilities such as pool halls , bingo parlors, bowling alleys and similar establishments . The Ordinance also rearranges the various sections within the chapter for administrative convenience. Ordinance No. 6548 shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication by title and summary. " SECTION 2 . The Pasadena Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Chapter 8 .78 adding a new Chapter 8 .78 to read as follows : W—M JULY 1991 _Vol.74 tim 7 4 ANALYZING PRODUCTS 'SERVICES ANU CDn6UMEfl$$l1E$ '� r�IIAGAZINE �r ._ r Yt ♦ ate.- st 5. ti 3.. . 1 -. � _ at < ;.;.fY'C�,-Y•` °9'-.' ��v`Sy r ..'r�u^ � -� ,,y-�4c� � v`-+ .- - rea Ri ,c$,n . AM.r W, °', ♦ > s i' .s .yy�>-+.. t3- -e':;s"a 3 ,�i�• �_ Ak �yTj��;X,ti��..ppVr��`i� �'•l,�g }�1 �}'{y(��s�l t`.�_ F � � e'1�ti�� �A r a S.r �•6 � 3T r s.+F rs,i '"�-a. �'�y ''sue. < tttt'"cc'c G �r -im MR, }w-'�5"♦ � 'S.xf.;f -�r�.��_u�- _..jty �a►r � a'.rV-`•Mi ..:�' »4..�-�" is �`.�sF"M ��.`���rs� r �`9�Sw^ ys• 'r c i may: rt��"�,.�'-$� i:-�.' �w'`<` ` s°-♦ � ��a,��!r .s*..� is ... �. 7 '"� Y`Y�ipr� �x Xs-� �" r •.. `T ♦ L Y Y�tYr.zyr ei. ,ems s REPRINTED FROM THE JULY 1991 CONSUMERS' RESEARCH Special Report: Passive Smoking : How Great A Hazard? By Gary L. Huber, MD, Robert E. Brockie, MD, and Vijay K. Mahajan, MD Reports from medical journals, the popular tions as low as one part in a billion or even in a media, and federal regulatory agencies about trillion parts of clean air, some of the highly- the adverse health effects of passive smoking diluted constituents in ETS are irritating to the have convinced many jurisdictions to ban smok- membranes of the eyes and nose of the non- ' ing in public places. What is often missing from smoker. Cigarette smoking is offensive to many such discussions is the scientific basis for the nonsmokers and some of these highly-diluted health-related claims. The following article constituents can trigger adverse emotional examines the scientific data concerning the responses, but do these levels of exposure really ascertainable risk from inhalation of environ- represent a legitimate health hazard? mental tobacco smoke. One of its authors, Dr. Gate Huber, spoke at a recent CR symposium on `Science and Regulation" (see article on page "Cigarette smoking is offensive 35).—Ed. to many nonsmokers and some of these highly-diluted con- © bout 50 million or so Americans are stituents can trigger adverse 1 active smokers, consuming well over 500 billion tobacco cigarettes each year. The emotional responses, but do "secondhand" smoke—usually called "environ- these levels of exposure really mental tobacco smoke," or more simply represent a legitimate health "ETS"—that is generated is released into their hazard?" surroundings, where it potentially is inhaled j passively and retained by nonsmokers. Or is it? 1 Literally thousands of ETS-related state- Clear answers to these questions are difficult ments now have appeared in the lay press or in to find. The generation, interpretation, and use I the scientific literature. Many of these have of scientific and medical information about i been published, and accepted as fact, without ETS has been influenced, and probably distort- ' adequate critical questioning. Based on the ed, by a "social movement" to shift the empha- i belief that these publications are accurate, sis on the adverse health effects of smoking in numerous public policies, regulations, and laws the active smoker to an implied health risk for have been implemented to segregate or restrict the nonsmoker. The focus of this movement, active smokers, on the assertion that ETS is a initiated by Sir George Godber of the World health hazard to those who do not smoke. Health Organization 15 years ago, was and is to What quantity of smoke really is released into emphasize that active cigarette smokers injure the environment of the nonsmoker?What is the those around them, including their families chemical and physical quality, or nature, of and, especially, any infants that might be I ETS remnants in our environment? Is there a exposed involuntarily to ETS. health risk to the nonsmoker? In concentra- By fostering the perception that secondhand smoke is unhealthy for nonsmokers, active Drs. Haber, Brockie, and Mahajan are with, respect- smoking has become an undesirable and an ively, the University of Texas Health Science Center, antisocial behavior. The cigarette smoker has the Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, and St. Vincent's become ever more segregated and isolated. This Hospital,lfedicalCollegeofOhio. ETS social movement has been successful in reducing tobacco cigarette consumption, per- health effects of ETS, it must first be appreciat- haps more than other measures, including ed that not all tobacco smoke is the same, and mandatory health warnings, advertising bans thus the risk for exposure to the different kinds on radio and television, and innumerable other of tobacco smoke must be considered indepen- efforts instituted by public health and medical dently.l professional organizations. But, has the ETS social movement been based on scientific truth and on reproducible data and sound scientific What Is ETS? principles? The three most important forms of tobacco At times, not surprisingly, the ETS social smoke are depicted in Figure 1. Mainstream movement and scientific objectivity have been smoke is the tobacco smoke that is drawn in conflict. To start with, much of the research through the butt end of a cigarette during on ETS has been shoddy and poorly conceived. active smoking; this is the tobacco smoke that Editorial boards of scientific journals have the active smoker inhales into his or her lungs. selectively accepted or excluded contributions The distribution of mainstream smoke is sum- not always on the basis of inherent scientific marized in Table 1 (page 12). Sidestream smoke merit but, in part, because of these social pres- is the tobacco smoke that is released in the sur- sures and that, in turn, has affected and biased rounding environment of the burning cigarette the data that are available for further analyses from its smoldering tip between active puffs. by professional organizations and governmen. Many publications have heated sidestream tal agencies. In addition, "negative" studies, smoke and ETS as if they were one and the even if valid, usually are not published, espe. same, but sidestream smoke and ETS are clear- cially if they involve tobacco smoke, and thus ly not the same thing. Sidestream smoke and they do not become part of the whole body of ETS have different physical properties and they literature ultimately available for analysis. Negative results on ETS and health can be 1A burning cigarette has been described as-a miniature chemical factory,' found in the scientific literature, but only with producing numerous new components from its raw materials. when a tripartite is smoked.the burning cone has a temperature of about 860 to great difficulty in that they are mentioned in 900-C during active putling, and smolders at 500 to 600-C between puffs. passing as a secondary variable in a "positive" When tobacco bums at these temperatures,Me products of pyrolapation are stud reporting some other finding unrelated to all vabors. As the vapos cool in passage away from the burning cone,they Y p $ $ condense into minute liquid droplets, initially about two ten-millionths of a ETS. meter In sat. Generally,then,all forms of smoke ate micrmerosols of very small liquid droplets of particulate matter suspended in their surrounding To evaluate critically any potential adverse vapors or gases.Thus,all smoke has a*particulate phase'and a'on phase.' Figure 1: Particulate Phase and Gas Phase of Tobacco Smoke" ° e se oeseeeoeoo°eeeeeeo °°°• ae . o a ee. we°°e°°° ° Mainstream Smoke Sidestream Smoke Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) -Schematic representation of me pamcuate phase and the gas phase of tobacco smoke.Environmental tobacco smoke is not smoke in the conventional sense,but rather a very limned hummer of highly-diluted remnants or residue constituents at mainstream smoke ano sidestream smoke. measurement. In this sense, then, ETS is really Table 1: Distribution of not smoke in the conventional sense of its defi- Mainstream Smoke nition, but rather consists of only a limited number of "remnants" or residual constituents Total Mainstream Smoke 500' present in highly dilute concentrations. Wet Total Particulate Matter 22 Because the levels of ETS cannot be quanti- Nicotine 1.3 fied accurately as such in the environment, Water 3.7 some investigators have attempted to measure `Tar" 17 one or more constituent parts of ETS as a "sub- Aerosol Gas Phase stitute marker" for ETS as a whole. The most Water 478 frequently employed such "marker" has been Air Components 50 nicotine or its first metabolically stable break- Carbon Monoxide 350 down product, cotinine. Nicotine was consid- Carbon Dioxide 50 ered an "ideal marker" because it is more or Other Components 8 less unique to tobacco, although small amounts 'All dm expressed in milligrams for a 500 in deliver ciparetle,as peter- can be found in some tomatoes and in other mined by Repeal Trade Commissbn chains, food sources. In the mainstream tobacco smoke SOURCE Adapted tram Hum,1989, that is inhaled by the active smoker, nicotine starts out almost exclusively in the tiny liquid have different chemical properties. Environ- droplets of the particulate phase of the smoke. mental tobacco smoke is usually defined as a Because the smoke particles of ETS become so combination of highly diluted sidestream smoke quickly and so highly diluted, however, nicotine plus a smaller amount of that residual main- very rapidly vaporizes from the liquid suspend- stream smoke that is exhaled and not retained ed particulates and enters the surrounding gas. by the active smoker. What really is ETS? In In technical terms, the process by which nico- comparison to mainstream smoke and side- tine leaves the suspended aerosol particle to stream smoke, ETS is so highly diluted that it enter the surrounding gas phase is called is not even appropriate to call it smoke, in the "denudation." conventional sense. Indeed, the term "environ- As a vapor or gas, nicotine reacts with or mental tobacco smoke" is a misnomer. adsorbs onto almost everything in the environ- Why is ETS a misnomer? Several reports on ment with which it comes into contact. Thus, smoking and health from the Surgeon nicotine is not a representative or even a good General's Office, a National Research Council surrogate marker for the particulate phase, or review of ETS in 1986, the more recent even the gas-vapor phase, of ETS. In fact, there Environmental Protection Agency's risk assess- are no reliable or established markers for ETS. ment of ETS, and several review articles all The remnant or residual constituents of ETS have provided a long list of chemical con- each have their own chemical and physical stituents derived from analyses of mainstream behavior characteristics in the environment smoke and sidestream smoke, with the implica- and none is present in a concentration in our tion that because they are demonstrable in environment that reaches an established mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke these threshold for toxicity.2 same constituents must, by inference, also be present in ETS. No one really knows if they are present or not. In fact, most are not so present Measuring Health Risks or, if they are, they are present only in very Because the level of exposure to ETS or the dilute concentrations that are well below the dose of ETS retained cannot be quantified level of detection by conventional technologies under every-day, real-life conditions, the health available today. effects following exposure to residual con- Only 14 of the 50 biologically active "proba- ble constituents" of ETS listed by the Surgeon 2A threshold limit value(usually expressed as miuignms of a substance Per General, for instance, actually have been mea- cubic meter of an or as pans of a substance present per million Pans Of res- sured or demonstrated at any level in ETS. The pirable clean air) is the recommended concentration of a substance as fire maximal level that should not be exceeded to prevent occasional disease others are there essentially by inference, not by through exposure in the workplace. Threshold limit values nave not been actual detection or measurement. Thus, there established for our general,every-day environment outside of industrial expo sure.Threshold limn values are determined by toxicologists.epidemiologists. are 36 constituents in these lists that are in- and hvp¢ms6 through their interpretation of literature,and usually are sanc- ferred to be present in ETS, but their presence tioneri by the American conference of Governmental and Pstnal Hygienists.No constituent of ETS has been measured in our every-day environment at levels has not been confirmed by actual detection or that exceed the threshold limit values permitted in the workplace. stituents of ETS have been imp,-.;ible to evalu- pared to "like." Maia.�tream smoke and the ate directly. In broad terms, two different residual constituents of ETS represent very dif- approaches have been employed in an attempt ferent exposure conditions. Whether present in to assess indirectly the health risks for expo- mainstream smoke or in ETS, particulate phase sure of the nonsmoker to the environmental and gas phase constituents have very different remnants of ETS. The first of these involves a biological properties, as well as different physi- theoretical concept that is called "linear risk cal and chemical characteristics, and any asso- extrapolation." Linear risk extrapolation has ciated health risks are also very different. The been employed extensively in attempts to deter- concept of linear risk extrapolation for ETS is mine the risk for lung cancer in nonsmokers based on a theory that when applied to ETS exposed to ETS.3 incorporates unsound assumptions that are not a This concept of linear risk assumes that if valid. There is no way, as yet, to evaluate or there is a definable health risk for the active compare the levels of exposure in active smok- { smoker, then there also must be a projected ers and nonsmokers exposed to ETS. lower health risk for the nonsmoker exposed to The second approach used to evaluate health ETS. This is represented schematically in risks for nonsmokers exposed to ETS has Figure 2. The risk has been presumed to be lin- employed epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology ear from the active smoker to the nonsmoker is a branch of medical science that studies the exposed to ETS, based proportionately on the distribution of disease in human populations relative exposure levels and retained doses of and the factors determining that distribution, smoke; it thus requires some measurement of chiefly by the use of statistics. The chief func- tobacco smoke exposure for both groups. This is fairly easy to achieve in the active smoker, in 3The concept is based on a theoretical extrapolation of the risk for lung cancer part because mainstream smoke has been so in the active smoker to the risk for lung cancer in the pas"smoker on the basis of a Ympremntative marker for both smoke exposures.This*inear nsk well-characterized and it is delivered directly extrapolation'from one to the other is a model that la based on mathematical from the butt-end of the cigarette into the theory and on several assumptions.The theory assumes that the risk applies to all exposure levels,even d they are very low.Some advocates of the model smoker. Such is obviously not the case, howev- even assume a'one molecule.one hit'mechanism,where exposures so low er for the nonsmoker exposed to ETS. that they cannot be detected or measured an still cause disease d only a sin. gle molecule reaches a vulneaole body tissue. The linear risk theory also Most projections of linear risk for ETS-expo- assumes that the risk for accummarve exposure remains ansmd and,tops, sure have been based on the use of nicotine as a that the second individual has no capacity to adapt or develop tolerance mechanisms for the exposure.Since active smokers readily and rapidly devel. representative marker of exposure. A few pro- op tolerance through a vainly of defense mechanisms, it seems illpgiml to jections have been based on carbon monoxide assume those repeatedly exposed to ETS would not do the same The linear risk model assumes that the risk for exposure to ETS is independent of any levels or amounts of respirable suspended par- confounding factors,finally,for this theory to be valid, a must De assumed ticulates in the environment, but these that the risk is unear for duration of exposure and flat 0 is unear for cOncen- trillion of exposure.None of these assumptions holds true on scientific testing approaches are fraught with even greater error. for comarative proiesvons of mainstream smoke to ETS. Since nicotine initially is in the particulate phase of the mainstream smoke inhaled by Figure 2: Linear Risk Extrapolation* the active smoker and it is r� present primarily as a highly ,a diluted gas-phase remnant or s residual vapor-phase con- 4.0- No Threshold stituent in the nonsmoker's o One Molecule Theory environment, the concept of a =3.0 i linear health risk from the o active smoker to the nonsmok- er is based on rather shaky e°a scientific-reasoning. cc That is to say, it is not valid 1.0 to estimate a health risk for exposure to the particulate 00 phase in the active smoker 0 7J1 4.0 6 8.0 10 and then compare it with the Relative Environmental Exposure Level health risk for exposures to •The concept of linear nsk extrapolation.In this theory,the health response(expressed as a Mo. the gas phase in the ETS- tive risk)is directly or llnany related to the relative environmental exposure level.This"cry sup- exposed nonsmoker. Simply Imieasone molecule of the environmental substance can muse an advese rusniumsel exposure to stated, "like" is not being com- tion are based on the concept of some measure- "Of the 30 ETS-lung cancer stud- ment of relative risk. None of the studies actu- ies, 6 reported a statistically ally has measured exposure to ETS or to any of significant association. . .and its residual constituents directly. Relative risk 24 of those studies reported no is a relationship of the rate of the development statistically significant effect." of a disease (such as lung cancer) within a group of individuals exposed to some variable in the population studied (such as ETS) divided by the rate of the same disease in those not tion of epidemiology is the identification of pop- exposed to this variable. ulations at high risk for a given disease, so that Relative risk is most frequently expressed as the cause may be identified and preventative a "risk ratio," which is a calculated comparison measures implemented. of the rate of the disease studied in the exposed Epidemiologic studies are most effective population divided by the rate of that disease in when they can assess a well-defined risk. some control population not exposed to the Because ETS-exposure levels cannot be mea- variable studied. The terms "risk ratio" and sured or in any other way quantified directly, "relative risk" are often used synonymously. even by representative markers, epidemiolo- Thus, the relative risk in all epidemiologic ETS gists have had to use indirect estimates, or sur- studies on lung cancer is expressed as the rate rogates, of ETS exposure. For nonsmoking of lung cancer in the ETS-exposed group (indi- adults, the number of active smokers that are viduals married to a household smoker) divided present in the household has been used as a by the rate of lung cancer where there was no surrogate for ETS exposure. Usually the active ETS exposure (no household smokers). If the smoking household member has been the non. disease rates were exactly the same in these smoker's spouse. With a few limited exceptions, two groups, the risk ratio would be 1.0. disease rates in nonsmokers exposed to a There have been 30 epidemiologic studies on spouse who smokes have been the basis for all spousal smoking and lung cancer published in epidemiologic assessments. the scientific literature. Twenty-seven of these Almost all of these studies have evaluated epidemiological studies were case control stud- nonsmoking females married to a husband who ies, where the effect of exposure to spousal smokes. For children, the surrogate for ETS smoking was evaluated retrospectively on data exposure has been the number of parents in the that had already been available for review. The household who smoke. Estimates of ETS expo- "cases" in these case-control studies were non- sure based on spousal or parental surrogates smoking individuals with lung cancer married have been derived by various questionnaires; to smokers. The rate of lung cancer in these no study employs any direct quantification of "cases" was compared, by the derived risk ETS or of ETS remnant constituents in the ratio, to the rate of lung cancer in "control" or actual environment of the nonsmoker. nonsmoking individuals who were married to Questionnaires of smoking habits are notori- nonsmokers. ously limited and often inaccurate, in part Three of the studies followed cohort popula- because of the "social taboo" that smoking has tions of individuals exposed to spousal smoking become and, in part, for other reasons related prospectively over the course of time. A to the ETS social movement. Nevertheless, data "cohort" is any designated group of people. A from questionnaires about smoking behavior in "cohort study" identifies a group of people that spouses or in parents are the only estimates of will be exposed to a risk and a group that will ETS exposure available. Rates for three dis- not be exposed to that risk, and then follows eases in nonsmokers exposed (via surrogates) these groups over time to compare the rate of to ETS have been assessed: lung cancer, coro- disease development as a function of exposure nary heart disease, and respiratory illness in or no exposure. infants and small children. Only lung cancer The first studies were published in 1982 and will be discussed in this article. the last studies were published in 1990. The studies originate broadly from different parts of ETS and Lung Cancer the world and, for the most part, involve evalu- ations of lung cancer in nonsmoking females What is the state of evidence on ETS and married to a smoking male partner; eight of the lung cancer? Almost all of the epidemiologic studies have limited data on nonsmoking males studies that are available to answer that ques- married to smoking females. Some of the stud- ies are quite small, listing fewer than 20 sub- the 30 epidemiologic studies on ETS and lung jects; others are based on larger populations, cancer, there are 37 different total reported with four studies reporting between 129 and sets of risk ratios for male or female nonsmok- 189 cancer cases. Of the 30 studies, six reported ers. None of the studies reports a strong rela- a statistically significant association (identified tive risk. by a positive relative risk ratio in the spousally. Nine of the studies report risk ratios of less exposed to the non-exposed population) and 24 than 1.0. Thus, the results from all epidemio. of the studies reported no statistically signifi- cant effect. The average esti- mated relative risk ratio for each study and each sex is list- Table 2: Studies of ETS ed in Table 2, as are the confi- dence intervals reported by the 95% authors or, where not reported, Number Relative Confidence calculated by others in pub- Study Sex of Cases Risk* Interval lished review articles.* Some of the negative studies— Case Comm]Studies that is, some of the 24 studies Chan and Fon0,1982 F 34 0.75 (0.43, 130) that did not r saw a statistically Trichopoulos eta].,1983 F 38 213•• (1.18, 3.83) Correa at at,1983 F 14 207 (0.81, 526) significant association between M 2 197 (0.38, 10.29) the development of lung cancer Kabat and Wynder, 1984 F 13 0.79 (0.25, 2.45) and exposure to spousal smok- M 5 1.00 (020, 5.07) ing—contained data that sug- Buffer alal.,1984 F 33 0.80 (0.34, 1.81) gested to the authors or to other M 5 031 (0.15, 1.74) reviewers a "positive trend." In Garfinkel at al.,1985 F 92 1.12 (0.94, 1.60) most of science, "trends" do not Wu at al.,1985 F 29 120 (0.50, 3.30) Al at al.,1986 F 73 132 (1.00, 25) count; data stand as either sta- M 3 210 (O3, 5.6) tistically significant or not sta- Lee at al.,1986 F 22 193 (0.37, 2.71) tistically significant, with sig- M 8 1.31 (0.38, 4.59) nificance determined by specif- Brovmson at al.,1967 F 19 1.65 (0.39, 2.97) is accepted rules of biostatis- Gao at al.,1987 f 189 1.19 (0.6, 1.4) tics. New rules should not be Humble at al.,1987 F 14 1.78 (0.6, 5.4) "made to fit" an otherwise Koo atal.,1987 F 51 135 (0.87, 3.09) unproved hypothesis, just Lam at al.,1987 F 115 1.11 (1.16, 2.35) Pershagen at al.,1987 F 33 120 (0.70, 2.10) because the subject is tobacco Geng at al.,1988 i F 34 216" (1.03, 4.53) and the observed results do not Inoue and Hirayama,1988 F 18 235 (0.91, 7.10) support the hypothesis investi• Katada of al.,1988 F 17 — (NS;p=023) gated. tam and Chong,1988 F 37 201•• (1.12, 1.63) Shimizu at al.,1988 F 90 1.10 WA He,1990 F 45 0.74 (0.32, 1.68) ETS Risk Weak Janerich at al.,1990 F 129 0.93 (035, 137) A relative risk is called strong Kabat,1990 M 13 120 (0.54, 2.68) or it is called weak, depending F 35 0.90 (046, 4.76) P g Kalandidi m al.,1990 F 91 2.11 (1.09, 4.08) on the degree of association, or Sobue at al.,1990 F 64 094 (0.62, 1.40) the magnitude of the risk ratio. Svensson,1990 F 17 120 (0.40, 290) A strong relative risk would be Wu-Williams at al..1990 F 205 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) reflected by a risk ratio of 5 to 20 or greater. Weak relative Cohort Studies risks, by conventional defini- Garfinkel,1981 F 88 1.17 (0.85, 1.89) (0.77, 1.61) tion, have risk ratios in the Gillis at al.,1984 F 6 1.00 (0.59, 17.85) range of 1 to 3 or so. Within M 4 325 Hirayama. 1984b F 163 1.45 (1.04 2.02) AA confidence interval is a range of values that has 1984a 7 226^ (1.19 4.22) a SpeCified probability of a ludmg the true value lay ooposed to the estimated average value,within 'Weak r4ntrve risks have nsk ratios of between 1 and 3,or so.Any nsk IabO bebw 1 represents a raga. that range. In the data presented in Table 2. the unit rtbhonshtp.Note that none or the moms snow a strong rinum nsk Confidence intervals are set such that there Is i ••$phShplly significant 5%level. 95% pmbabllity that the true value win fall .,thin the range of values nsied. Smoke ■ ■ ■ ■ "No matter how these [risk] data are analyzed, no one has reported a strong risk relation- logic studies consistently reveal only weak lung Ship for strong to Spousal cancer risks for nonsmokers exposed to spousal smoking, with only six of the studies reaching smoking and lung cancer." statistical significance; 24 epidemiologic studies report no statistically significant effect for ETS exposure. the American Health Foundation, stated that Weak relative risks, however, do not exclude when an assessment of relative risk is weak causal relationships. When the relative risks (that is, when the odds risk ratios are in the are weak it is very difficult to determine if the range of 2 to 1 or less) the possibility exists effect is artifactual or if it is real. Weak associa- that the finding is artificial and a consequence tions are close in magnitude to a level of risk of problems in the case control selection or is that is sometimes called "background noise," due to the presence of confounders (or con- and at this level of risk there are variables founding variables) and interpretation biases other than the one stud'ad that can influence which need to be carefully considered. the statistical association. . Confounding variables must be controlled in When a series of epidemiologir studies order to obtain an undistorted estimate of the reveals consistently weak associations that effect of a study factor, such as spousal smok- sometimes individually reach statistical signifi- ing, on risk. This is especially true when the cance and sometimes do not, all of the data can studied risk factor has a weak association. be pooled into a more comprehensive assess- At least 20 confounding factors have been ment to enhance the confidence of the assess- identified as important to the development of ment. This is called a "meta-analysis." There lung cancer. These include nutrition and are specific rules, however, for combining data dietary prevention, exposure to occupational and not every published study lends itself to carcinogens, exposure to various air pollution this kind of assessment. The National Research contaminants, genetic predisposition and fami- Council concluded, in 1986, that 13 of the then ly prevalence, circulating beta-carotene levels available studies met criteria that would permit (as well as vitamin E and vitamin A levels), his- a combined meta-analysis risk assessment. tory of alcohol consumption, exposure to alpha When the data from these 13 studies were com- emitting radiation (such as radon daughters), bined, the net relative risk from all available geographical residence and country of origin, studies was represented by a risk ratio of 1.34. presence or absence of selenium and other trace The risk ratios as the result of other adjusted metals, healthy versus unhealthy lifestyles, meta-analyses available for review vary from age, gender, housing conditions, race, marital 1.08 to 1.42, with generally lower values status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, diag- derived from population studies in the United nostic criteria, and perhaps most importantly States and with somewhat higher levels of risk of all, an enhanced clustering of risk factors. derived on populations outside of the United Thus, a large number of confounding variables States. are important to any consideration of spousal No matter how the data from all of the epi- smoking and lung cancer, and no reported demiological studies are manipulated, recalcu- study comes anywhere close to controlling, or lated, "cooked," or "massaged," the risk from even mentioning, half of these. exposure to spousal smoking and lung cancer remains weak. It may be 1.08 or it may be 1.34 or it may be 1.42, but all of those still represent Is ETS a Health Hazard? a weak relative risk. No matter how these data Does exposure to the remnants or residual are analyzed, no one has reported a strong risk constituents of ETS represent a legitimate relationship for exposure to spousal smoking health hazard to the nonsmoker? In consider- and lung cancer. Combining all the data from ing spousal smoking, lung cancer, and the con- all epidemiological studies does not result in an founding factors, Linda Koo, at the University enhancement of the relative risk—the risk for of Hong Kong, cautioned that it may not be the lung cancer with exposure to spousal smoking hazards of tobacco smoke that are being evalu- is weak. ated, but a whole range of behaviors that result In addressing this problem, Ernst Wynder, of from having a smoking husband, which may, in 0 Has there been a "misrepresentation of sci- "Unfortunately, scientific data ence" in the common perception of ETS today? have not always been utilized Active tobacco smoking and environmental objectively by governmental tobacco smoke are controversial, very emotion- agencies or regulatory bodies M• and highly politicized subjects. In the quag- mire of ETS forces operative in politics, emo- that have their own Inherent tion, and science, it has been difficult to sort public health or political out scientific fact from unsound conjecture. agenda." Unfortunately, scientific data have not always been utilized objectively by governmental agen- cies or regulatory bodies that have their own turn, increase the risk for certain diseases inherent public health or political agenda. Good among the wives and children. Indeed, con- science ultimately must rest on established founding variables are always present and they proven scientific methods, and the full results are so numerous and so complex that they may generated by these scientific methods. When make it impossible ever to know the true risk these methods are compromised, scientific for lung cancer in nonsmokers exposed to integrity is lost and society pays the price. spousal smoking. Interpretations and judgments may vary, as a Are the studies on the projections of It vels of function of an investigator's bias or to expedite ETS residual constituents in our environment, one or another political, social or emotional and the studies on the spousal smoking and objective. lung cancer, a reflection of "bad science?" Not Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts necessarily, for they are the best science that is Institute of Technology, has emphasized that available today. Sir Bradford Hill of Oxford problems will arise where we will need to University cautioned years ago that it is impor- depend on scientific judgement, and by ruining tant to remember that all science is subject to our credibility now we leave society with a being reinterpreted or to being changed and resource of some importance diminished. The modified by advancing knowledge. As newer implementation of public policies must be based technologies are applied to the assessment of on good science, to the degree that it is avail- environmental tobacco smoke, clearer under- able,and not on emotion or on political needs. standings will evolve. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific methodologies. Such has Re�rinisAvailable not always been the case with environmental tobacco smoke. Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard? Reprints of this special report are available for $2.00 each. Bulk rates: 10-99 copies, $1.80 apiece; 100-499 copies, $1.75 apiece; 500 or more, $1.50 apiece. Send check to: Consumers' Research 800 Maryland Ave., N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 ATTN: Reprint Department Be sure to indicate how many copies of this reprint you want. Please allow four to six weeks for delivery. JCOUMER Special Report: Passive Smoking And Your Heart Reprinted From The April 1992 Issue Of Consumers' Research Special Report: Passive Smoking And Your Heart Gary L. Huber, MD, Robert E. Brockie, MD, and Vijay K. Mahajan, MD. n the July 1991 issue of CR, we defined from cardiovascular disease as there are from all the nature of environmental tobacco forms of cancer combined. smoke (ETS), presented an overview of Coronary artery disease, an illness that is due how the possible health risk of exposure to ETS to a narrowing or blockage of the major vessels is assessed, and reviewed the available literature that supply blood to the heart muscle, is one of on the alleged relationship between ETS expo- the most common forms of cardiovascular disease. sure and the risk of nonsmokers developing lung If the coronary artery is partially blocked, the cancer (see "Passive Smoking: How Great a Haz- reduced blood supply to the heart muscle may and?"). There are published now a total of 32 cause reversible ischemic heart pain, or angina studies on ETS and lung cancer. Although some pectoris, to develop. If the blockage is more may cite these reports to mean otherwise, the severe, myocardial infarction (irreversible dam- majority of the published data do not support age to part of the heart muscle) can develop; the conclusion that exposure to the residual con- stituents of ETS is associated with lung cancer "The fact that about half of all in nonsmokers. That is, only 7 of the 32 pub- cardiovascular deaths can not lished studies—or less than a fourth of the investigations that have examined this ques- be explained on the basis of spe- tion—report a small, but statistically significant, cific identifiable risks reflects increased risk. The reader is referred to our ear- how little we really know about her publication for a more extensive analysis of these matters, and how extreme- these considerations. ly difficult it is to study them Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has with precision." also been reported as associated with the develop- ment of cardiovascular disease. This is an impor- tant issue, in that the number of people in our society who develop cardiovascular disease worse yet, sudden death may occur. These are exceeds by a substantial margin those that will manifestations of coronary artery disease that we develop cancer. A critical evaluation of this sub- commonly call "heart attacks." Coronary artery ject requires placing the available information in disease and heart attacks cause about one death, some rational perspective within a broader under- every minute in this country. standing of cardiovascular disease in general. The exact cause of coronary heart disease is The term "cardiovascular disease" is used to not known. It is generally held that the primary describe those illnesses of the heart, brain, and problem is atherosclerosis, which is a gradual other organ systems that develop because of build-up of fatty deposits on the inside of the acquired abnormalities in the blood vessels that coronary vessels. The build-up of these deposits supply them. Cardiovascular diseases are by far forms an atherosclerotic plaque, rendering the the most common cause of disease and death in artery wall thicker, often with an irregular sur- our society today. Over 60 million Americans suf- face that may cause the blood within to clot. This fer from these diseases and one million or more of is a slow process that begins in infancy or early them die each year, accounting for one death childhood and progresses all through life. As the every 30 seconds. Cardiovascular diseases are build-up of fats (primarily cholesterol) continues, responsible for almost one-half of all deaths in the a point is reached where the vessel opening United States. To place this in further perspec- becomes significantly narrowed and is more sus- tive, there are more than twice as many deaths ceptible to complete blockage. Many people who Drs.Haler,Brockie, and Mahajan are with, respectively, die of heart attacks, however, do not have an the University of Texas Health Center, the Presbyterian unusual amount of atherosclerosis in their coro- Hospital of Dallas, and St. Vincent's Hospital-Medical nary vessels, or even elevated cholesterol levels. -College of Ohio. Furthermore, the degree of development of April 1992 plaque formation does not n stently correlate strong, there is a. mplication of a potential with the site of an eventual occlusion or with causal relationship. Even when very strong, how- death from this disease. ever, risk factors by themselves do not represent Atherosclerosis appears to be responsible for anything other than a statistical association. the largest share of heart attacks and related They must always be considered in the context of deaths in this country.How or why atherosclerotic other scientific information. They must also be plaques occur and develop, however, is not evaluated in the context of whether or not the known.' In the absence of a proven mechanism for reported association makes any biological sense. the development of coronary heart disease, The strength of a statistical association does emphasis has been placed on the identification, not necessarily determine its importance. For through epidemiological studies, of "risk factors" instance, a weak association,if statistically signif- that are associated with an accelerated rate of for- icant, that affects very large numbers of people mation of atherosclerotic plaques. Most often, may be important because of the magnitude of its however, results of such epidemiological studies effect on the population at risk A strong statisti- are expressed as death that is attributable to heart cal association that has no biological relevance disease, not as a quantification of atherosclerosis. may be unimportant or meaningless. Even strong Unfortunately, death certificates, from which relative risk associations must be viewed cau- mortality rates are often derived, are notoriously tiously when there exist numerous potential caus- inaccurate for diagnosis of heart disease. es of a disease. The greater the number of potential "causes" of a disease (usually identified Risk Factors as risk factors), the more difficult it becomes to analyze (or implicate) any one of these "causes" A risk factor is the term that describes a char- (or risks)to the exclusion of another. acteristic of behavior or of lifestyle, or an envi- When the relative risk is less than 2.5 or so, ronmental exposure, or an inherited the association of the identified risk factor with characteristic, that on the basis of epidemiologi- the development of the disease is, by convention, cal data is reported to be associated with the considered to be weak. That is to say, the associa- development of disease. tion of the risk factor with the development of The risk is usually expressed as an "odds- disease may have only limited or no real meaning. ratio,"or a"risk ratio," which measures "relative The weaker the relative risk, the greater must be risk" in comparison to some control group or pop- the care and responsibility exercised in its inter- ulation which has not been exposed to the factor pretation. When the relative risk is less than 2.0, in question. If there is no difference in the disease there is a strong possibility (or probability) that rates associated with the factor, compared to the the association is artifactual—that is, the relative disease rate for the non-exposed or control group, risk may actually be due to confounding factors the relative risk will he calculated as "unity," or where two or more potential associations cannot I.D. If there are differences in the disease rate be separated or distinguished. (A confounding that are associated with the factor studied, these factor, in this context, can be defined in the most differences will be expressed as a relative risk simple of terms as "an alternative explanation.") that is some variation of unity. If the relative risk When the relative risk is less than 2.0, there are is less than 1.0, the average exposed individuals enormous problems of controlling the biases of would have less chance than the nonexposed con- the investigator as well as biases that are inher- trol individuals for the development of the dis- ently present within the experimental design of ease. If the relative risk is greater than 1.0, the every epidemiological study. Bias, in this context, exposed individuals would have an increased means the introduction of error by failing to con- chance for the development of the disease. How- trol for or to consider other important influences. ever, the degree of increased or decreased risk Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease. To compli- must be "statistically significant" by acceptable cate matters further, it is extremely unlikely that biostatistical criteria before a relative risk can cardiovascular disease is ever caused by one factor. have any meaningful importance. The development and progression of this disease Relative risk relationships are only mathemati- are associated with many factors. Over the past 25 cal associations. When they are consistent and years, in fact, more than 300 identifiable risk fac- tors have been reported as potentially important to 'Then turrmdy are two widely investigated.speculative mend«, (1) the development of cardiovascular diseases. Athemsclerctx plaques develop in responx to an Initial iniury to the Even with this large number of risk factors, blood vessel wall. or (2) the plaques are an uncontrolled growth of eorw, with replication within the vessel wall that results in a build-up leading authorities in cardiology emphasize that of cholesterol Wen cells that eventually will cause a blockage. it is remarkable that most people who develop Consumers'Research atherosclerosis and most peop.- who die from car- Other estimates, now based on over 20 million diovascular disease do not have a readily identifi- person-years of epidemiological assessment, have able specific risk factor to explain their disease. set the relative risk in active smokers for coro- For example, only slightly less than 50% of all nary heart disease at a level of from as low as 1.3 cardiovascular disease and death has been associ- to as high as 2.0 or slightly greater, but with a ated with specific risk factors. The fact that about four-fold greater risk for sudden death, compared half of all cardiovascular deaths can not be to nonsmokers. explained on the basis of specific identifiable risks Indeed, when critically analyzed, most epidemi. reflects how little we really know about these ological studies report that active tobacco smok. matters, and how extremely difficult it is to study ing alone is, in the absence of other potential risk them with precision. factors (such as high blood pressure and high Cardiovascular risk factors are usually classi- serum cholesterol levels), an extremely weak risk fied as unmodifiable or modifiable. Unmodifiable factor for the development of cardiovascular dis- risk factors are ones that represent an association eases. Given the presence of additional risk fac- that cannot be changed, such as age, gender, race, tors, however, such as high blood cholesterol genetic determinants, family history, and so on. levels or hypertension, tobacco cigarette smoking Modifiable risk factors in many ways are poten- has been reported to influence the net overall risk tially more important, because once identified for death from coronary heart disease. That is, they hopefully can be reduced or controlled. adding active tobacco smoking to another under- Modifiable risk factors number literally in the lying risk may result in a net effect that is greater hundreds, but the most important ones are than simply the sum of the two individual risks thought to be high blood pressure, diabetes melli- combined. There are several possible explanations tus, and elevated blood levels of cholesterol and for this, which will be addressed in the discussion triglycerides. Excessive life stress, excessive alco- that follows. It is not clear, for instance, whether hol intake, lack of regular exercise, cigarette tobacco smoke itself is actually important in the smoking, obesity in a certain body distribution, development of atherosclerosis or whether simply and other life style factors may be almost equally that tobacco smoking is an epidemiological important. Most physicians try to reduce modifi- "marker" for a life style characterized by multiple able risk factors in the hope of reducing the mor. high risk behaviors. It must be remembered, how- bidity and mortality due to cardiovascular ever,that increasing the strength of the risk asso- diseases and, especially,coronary heart disease. ciation does not allow the inference that the risk factor in itself is causal, for active tobacco smok- ing or for cholesterol or for any other factor. Active Smoking Active tobacco smoking is reported as a major and an important risk factor for the development `Passive' Smoking of cardiovascular diseases and for coronary heart Nine epidemiological studies (see table, page disease. Active smoking is called a "major" risk 171 have reported the relative risk for develop- factor because of the large numbers of people who ment of cardiovascular disease in nonsmokers smoke. Smoking rates may be under-reported exposed to ETS. Since the residual constituents of now because of the associated "social taboos" of ETS are so dilute, it is extremely difficult to mea- smoking. In spite of this consideration, it is esti- sure them directly. In that context, then, it is mated that at least 50 million Americans contin- important to emphasize that none of the nine epi- ue to smoke on a regular basis. The Office of the demiological studies actually measured exposure Surgeon General has emphasized that reducing to ETS, but rather projected or estimated an the magnitude of this active smoking population exposure to ETS on the basis of a surrogate. The would have a major national health impact in surrogate was usually the historical identification reducing cardiovascular disease mortality. (by answer to a questionnaire) of a smoker living Although classified as a "major" risk factor for in the household of a nonsmoker. The nine stud- heart disease on the basis of the sheer number of ies contain 12 sets of epidemiological data, seven active smokers, it may come as a surprise to many sets of which are data for nonsmoking females readers to learn that active cigarette smoking is who were married to or living with active male not a strong risk factor. For instance, in 1983 the smokers, and in some instances who reported Surgeon General's report focused exclusively on ETS exposure in their workplace. Limited data tobacco smoking and cardiovascular diseases and are available on four sets of nonsmoking males estimated the relative risk for coronary heart dis- who reported a surrogate equivalent of exposure ease in smokers at 1.7, compared to nonsmokers. to ETS. April 1992 disease. Three of t' ?TS studies are low validity What Is ETS tee-control studies and six of the ETS studies ■ are cohort "quasi-prospective" assessments. That Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) consists is, they are drawn from what were prospective of"secondhand" residual smoke constituents studies designed for another purpose and, as emitted by active smokers into their sur- such, are valid only for generating hypotheses, roundings. The nonsmoker may be exposed to not for confirming them. None of the six cohort these residual constituents in very dilute con- studies were initially designed to evaluate the centrations. effect of ETS as a risk for cardiovascular disease. ETS residual constituents are remnants of They all represent "data dredging" by "retrospec- exhaled mainstream and of sidestream tobac- tive" assessments of "nested case-controls" fol- co smoke that are so dispersed in environ- lowed prospectively for another purpose. mental air that it is somewhat of a misnomer, The studies are of diverse design and draw con- or misconception, even to refer to them as flicting conclusions. The six cohort studies, for "smoke," per se. Under real-life conditions, example, do not report comparable data. Some only about 100 or so of these environmental report disease rates and others report death tobacco smoke remnants have been identified rates, some report prevalence statistics and oth- to date—and then only at extremely low con- ers incidence data, and some assess the broad cat- centrations—in the environment of smokers. egory of cardiovascular diseases in general and This is 'n contrast to the several thousand others assess certain manifestations of only the constih ants that have been reported for the more specific coronary heart disease. For these mainstream smoke that is inhaled by active reasons, the data from the various studies cannot smokers. be legitimately combined in so-called meta•analy- sis to see if stronger conclusions can he drawn.' Even though combining such diverse data as Five of the twelve data sets report very small are available from these studies is not generally increases in relative risk that reach statistical sig- considered scientifically acceptable (at least not nificance, and seven of the data sets report by currently justified procedures), two publics- changes that are not statistically significant at tions nevertheless have attempted to do so.' A conventional levels of biostatistical acceptance. third publication (Steenland, 1992), did not pool A relative risk ratio is an estimated average results of epidemiological studies, but developed change in the disease rate associated with the and employed an elaborate model based on an studied variable; in all of these studies, then, the extensive number of untested assumptions. relative risk is the projected estimate of risk for Steenland projected a 2.2 percent greater chance developing cardiovascular diseases for nonsmok- for nonsmoking males and 1.2 percent greater ing individuals married to or living with smokers. chance for nonsmoking females of dying from Confidence intervals also are included for all data coronary heart disease by age 74, when living presented in the table.' Seven of the 12 data sets with a smoker, in comparison to those living with have as a lower limit of their confidence intervals a nonsmoker over a lifetime. a relative risk of less than unity (1.0), indicating, Dosimetry and Trends. None of the studies on by universally accepted epidemiological stan- ETS and cardiovascular diseases measured or in dards, that spousal smoking may not be associat- any way directly quantified actual exposure to ed with the development of cardiovascular environmental tobacco smoke.' In the absence of diseases in nonsmokers; in other words, confi- direct measurements of exposure, these studies, dence intervals that reach less than unity for rel- like all epidemiologic studies on ETS, have used ative risks indicate that there is insufficient evidence that the experimental group is different 2 A 95%wordenee interval is.ststistid etmreevion of a more of v.l- fromfrom the control group at the specified level of nee that have,es listed here,•955E probability of including the true ance. value for the etfed of nonsmokers living with smoking spouses,mm- nered to norvmoken livinr with nonsmoking spouwa. 3 Mete-atudwu u a way of pooling or rombming severed studies,by sle- tistinl snafysis and integration of the rendu of low-power or weak How Valid? r�nrte•m order to draw conchisions tout may be stronger then those demonstrable in ions of the week studies alone. None of the ETS epidemiological studies is a ''The first publintion l wells.1988,derived sin setimst 'pooled relative rink-for ETS surrogate ezposure snd heart diverse of 12 for females "high validity" randomized prospective interven- end 1.3 for males.The second pabliestion ,clans:and p.rmley, 1991) tion stud designed to evaluate whether or not a failed to provide the reeds,with the methodology employed.and projm- y ed an overell`pooled risk•of 1.3 for both males end females. reduction in the level of exposure to ETS is asso- 5 Five of the nine stnd,es.n ETS end eardiovavmtlar dae...anempad ciated with a reduction in risk for cardiovascular to assess via a questionnaire on household smokers whether or not there was a•dose-related•usocation between the number of smokers Conturnem'R■s■arch Studies of ETS and Cardiovascular Disease in Nonsmokers 95% Type of Number Relative Confidence Study Sex Study# of Cases* Risk" Interval Variables Controlled Hirayama. 1984" F P 494 1.16 0.9-1.4 Husband's age Garland.1985 F P 19 2.7 0.9-13.6 Age.blood pressure(BP).migi.choles- terol martial status. Lee, 1986 F C 77 0.9 0.5-1.6 Age,marital status. M C 41 1.2 0.5-2.6 Svendsen,1987 M P 13 2.1 0.7-6.5 Age.BP,plasma lipids,weight.income, education.alcohol. Helsing,1968 M P 370 1.3' 1.1-1.6 Age,eduatlon.m anal status,income. F P 988 1.2' 1.1-1.4 He,1989 F C 34 1.5' 1.3-1.8 Age.BP,cholesterol,race,residence, alcohol,other factors(but data not available). Humble,1990 F P 76 1.6 1.0-2.6 Age,BP,weight,cholesterol. Hole, 1990 M/F P 64 2.0' 1.2-3.4 Age,BP,weight,cholesterol,social class. Dobson,1991 M C 22 1.0 0.5-1.9 Age,sex.prior coronary heart disease. F C 43 2.5' 1.5-4.1 Nphollm( ve cohort study:C•refrospectrve as!-COlitml mey statlst1011y signdlam At me MwemlolWry&=Pled IevN(5%), '-weak reatwe males have nst ri ios between 1.0 and 3.a or so.Any m sk below 1.0 represent a negethe marbonshlp.Note that none of the studies moon a strong average mume nsk.Dare mooned art Itom the author s papers or from rvim articles. .Lases contains coronary heart disease deaths arwor ardiorascual dmanse,wnh or without death. «some of the data horn Hirayama were reported as'sst scaly signpionr wimi uncomenorul 90%confidence imervals(satins no,of 13 wed 1.1-1+6 confi- dence irnerw6):recomola nn,of all of his c ra aaiabk reuals a nonsigndiram mame nsk. surrogates of exposure. For nonsmokers, the sur- rogate of ETS exposure has been an estimation of "Six of the nine studies report a the number of active smokers living in the same relative risk for cardiovascular household (usually an actively smoking husband or coronary heart disease...that with a nonsmoking female or an actively smoking is approximately equal to or in wife with a nonsmoking male) or an estimate of excess of that reported for active smokers present in the work-place of the non- smokers. Intuitively, that makes smokers. These surrogate "exposure" estimates were derived exclusively through various ques- no biological sense whatsoever. tionnaires. No study employed actual direct quan- tification of ETS or ETS constituents in the environment of the nonsmoker. We reviewed in legitimate ways to assess whether or not such some detail the serious shortcomings of this "trends" might have some "statistical signifi- approach in our previous publication in CR, noted cane." Seven of the nine original reports claim above,and the reader is referred to that contribu- and discuss "trends" in their results, even when tion for a more extensive discussion. their own published statistical analyses of these As with other studies on ETS and potential dis- data demonstrate that the proposed "trends" had ease risks, some of the reports on ETS and cardio- no statistical significance. In other words, these vascular disease contain data on some of the contributors seemed to ignore their own biostatis- population subsets that, in the absence of other- tical analyses and to adapt new rules to fit wise significant differences, suggested to the hypotheses otherwise not provable by their own authors or to other reviewers a"trend" of the sta- reported data or by conventionally accepted bio- tistically insignificant data toward a meaningful statistical principles. association. Although in most of science "trends" Other Scientific Evidence. Nonsmokers in the in these kinds of data do not count, there are environments of active smokers typically are exposed to only extremely small amounts of a W the h.hold and the amount of ardimasoilar disease.The rwWu very limited number of residual remnants of ETS. aero meomietent,with acme rtporting a dose-spores relationship, Potential cardiovascular effects would not be most reporting no significant effect,and name data suggesting a r Brae doe,resporue mlatiomhip_aaa diwx reported with high lev. expected from exposure to such small concentra- eb tar e=po.arr w M. tions of these smoke constituents. April 1992 "All of the more than ; ) cardio- Confounding Variable i confounding variable is vascular risk factors that have one that can cause or prevent the outcome of been identified are confounding interest (in this case, death from cardiovascular disease) and is not associated with the factor variables and many have the under investigation (in this case, reported expo- same approximate relative risk sure to ETS). All of the more than 300 cardiovas- or risk ratio as that reported for cular risk factors that have been identified are spousal smoking." confounding variables and many have the same approximate relative risk or risk ratio as that reported for spousal smoking. If these confound- ing variables are not evaluated and controlled for Under real-life conditions,'it has been estimat- in an epidemiological study on ETS, how then can ed that nonsmokers are exposed to approximately ETS be implicated to the exclusion of the other as little as 1/10,000 to at most only about 1/100 to factors? 2/100 per hour or so of certain constituents of It cannot be, of course, but that is exactly what cigarette smoke to which the active smoker is has happened in the nine studies on ETS and car- ` exposed in the same period. diovascular diseases. For instance, the two largest Exposure of nonsmokers to the highly diluted studies (Hirayama with 494 cases and Helsing residual constituents of ETS is at a concentration with 1358 cases—together representing well over well below that level which would be exp• cited to 80%p of all reported cases in these studies) do not produce any long-term pathological effect; or dis- even control for blood cholesterol levels, do not ease. Remarkably, then, in the face of this control for high blood pressure, and do not con- extremely low level of exposure, six of the nine trol for diabetes mellitus, the three strongest risk studies report a relative risk for cardiovascular or factors associated with cardiovascular disease. coronary heart disease associated with ETS expo- Indeed, none of the nine studies controls for more sure that is approximately equal to or in excess of than a limited handful of the potential 300 or that reported for active smokers. Intuitively, that more reported identifiable risk factors. makes no biological sense whatsoever. Something In the absence of controlling these variables, clearly is wrong with either the design or with the the reported outcomes for implied ETS exposure gathering and calculation of the epidemiological are impossible to interpret with any confidence or data in these studies. meaning. In fact, it is now scientifically unaccept- Cigarette smoking remains a high frequency able to undertake an investigation (or, for that event in our society, with an estimated 50 million matter,unacceptable to accept the contention of a or more active smokers today. Approximately 500 published study) on cardiovascular disease with- to 600 billion cigarettes are consumed each year out properly controlling for the three best known in this country alone. Death from cardiovascular and widely accepted risk factors—high plasma disease is also a high frequency event in our soci- cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and dia- ety, with over one million cardiovascular deaths betes mellitus. each year and one death every 30 seconds. It is not surprising, therefore, that considerable inves- tigative effort would be spent on studying the Lifestyle Factors potential association between these two high fre- Active smokers are different from nonsmokers quency events. in a remarkable number of ways. In general, When such potential associations are studied, smokers as a group appear to have a lifestyle that great care must be exercised to control for the results in a clustering of several adverse health influence of confounding factors on the reported risk factors. Smokers tend to drink more alcohol results. This is particularly true for cigarette than nonsmokers, drink more coffee, live a more smoking and cardiovascular diseases because the stressful life, behave more aggressively, have a reported association between the two is quite lower socioeconomic status, exercise less, sleep weak, the number of additional risk factors is less, and spend less time on enjoyable hobbies. extraordinarily large, and less than half of all car- Smokers tend to be less safety conscious, not to diovascular disease mortality is reported to be wear seatbelts, to have accidents more frequently, associated with specific identifiable risk factors. and to behave in ways that increase their risks for injury. Smokers, on average, are less educated a By living conditions in it u meant as opr,otu to the erti in al con. thnonsmokers. Smokers are less "health con- dev living conditions in the world, as opposed to the artificial coo- atreints of the experimental laboratory or a sealed environment scious" than nonsmokers, and they have a more chamber, negative attitude about modifying behavior to Consumers'Research avoid ill health and, in ge..�ral, toward preventive same household would differ significantly for health measures. Smokers participate in fewer smoking and nonsmoking household members. health risk screening tests and are less conscious Many of the lifestyle risk factors that cluster for about implementing good health practices than smokers are the same risk factors that are associ- nonsmokers. ated in general with increased risks for cardiovas- The diet of smokers is also different from the cular diseases and coronary heart disease. How diet of nonsmokers. Smokers eat a higher propor- these lifestyle risk factors confound the study of tion of fat, ingest more salt, and consume more these diseases in nonsmoking spousal partners sweet foods and ice creams than do nonsmokers. within the same household of smokers is The smoker's diet has fewer fruits, less fiber, unknown, primarily because the epidemiological fewer vegetables, and lower intakes of vitamins A studies on spousal smoking and cardiovascular _ and C, folate and beta-carotene. Smokers have disease have not evaluated them or controlled for more irregular eating patterns than nonsmokers, them.Until control for such confounding factors is and tend more often to skip breakfast or skip implemented in studies of this nature, the inter- lunch or both. Smokers tend to eat white bread pretation of reports of increased relative risks for more often, while nonsmokers eat brown bread cardiovascular diseases and for coronary heart dis- more often. Smokers tend to drink whole milk, ease must be highly qualified and guarded. while nonsmokers tend to drink low-fat milk. Mechanisms of Disease. Proponents of the Smokers have diets richer in saturated fats, while hypothesis that exposure to ETS enhances the nonsmokers consume proportionately greater risk for the development of heart disease attempt polyunsaturated fats. Smokers eat more "junk to support that argument with a claim that _ food"and"fast foods"than do nonsmokers. sidestream tobacco smoke is more "toxic" than Smokers have, independent of smoking, a mainstream smoke. We reviewed this matter fair- lifestyle and a diet that has been associated with ly extensively in our previous contribution to CR, increased risks for coronary heart disease, cardio- concluding that sidestream smoke and ETS are vascular diseases (including strokes), and cancers not the same and, in fact, bear little resemblance of all types. Smokers have a lifestyle and a diet to each other. It has been proposed, nevertheless, that tobac- co smoke particulates known as polycyclic aro- "How these lifestyle risk fac- matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), such as tors confound the study of these benzo(alpyrene (BAP), can induce injury to blood diseases in nonsmoking spousal vessels and lead ultimately to atherosclerotic partners within the same house- plaque formation. The basis for this assertion is hold of smokers is unknown." the observation that experimental animals (par- ticularly the chicken) with artificially elevated high levels of blood cholesterol will have increased rates of atherosclerosis if administered certain PAHs. that depresses immune defenses against exoge- One of the problems with such reasoning, how- nous toxins and against endogenous abnormali- ever, is that the PAHs must be administered ties, such as malignancies. In short, smokers have chronically in doses of 10 to 100 milligrams per certain behavior characteristics that collectively kilogram per week; administration of lower doses might be described as "unhealthy lifestyles." does not appear to have any effect. Mainstream The degree to which nonsmoking spouses of smoke delivers about 20 to 40 nanograms (one- smokers share a clustering of unhealthy risk fac- billionth of a gram) of BAP per cigarette to the tors has not been studied extensively and has not active smoker. If the dose used in the chicken been quantified. We simply do not know for sure studies indeed were extrapolable to humans, it how spouses of smokers behave, but it is only would be comparable to active smokers consum- common sense that these various risks would be ing, as a very conservative estimate, over 5 mil- shared. lion cigarettes each day to reach even the lower It is unlikely that nonsmoking spousal part- threshold limit of response. ners share all of these increased health risks, but If those projections appear preposterous, con- it also is improbable that they do not share at sider, then, how much highly-diluted ETS would least many of them. For example, the patterns of have to be inhaled to reach a threshold level of individual eating may be somewhat different for response. In ETS, BAP is present, if at all in smokers and nonsmoking spouses but it is highly detectable levels, at considerably diluted concen- unlikely that the food availabilities within the April 1992 Smoke. . . . trations well below those demonstrable in the mainstream smoke inhaled by active smokers. (In fact, in studies on humans, no differences in uri- nary markers of the PAHs were reported detectable after exposure to ETS, even at artifi- cially-created extraordinarily unrealistically high levels of exposure.) Science Offers Better The available data, reviews, and analyses reporting a health risk for cardiovascular and coronary heart diseases, as well as the data we previously reviewed for the reported relationships between ETS and lung cancer, should not be dis- missed or disre arded, even though much of the science employed is of questionable quality and validity. These potential associations should not be ignored, even though the studies that report them are inconsistent and the magnitude of these risks is within the range of "background noise" for epidemiological studies of this nature. The studies should be viewed with healthy scientific skepticism because they have not been controlled adequately for numerous confounding factors potentially important to the development of these diseases. Although the data available should not be rejected, they also should not be considered to be of an acceptable scientific quality. These studies represent the only data that are available today, and most of the investigators who have reported their data deserve due credit for publishing these initial observations in an attempt to answer a very, very difficult question. Science has much better to offer, however, and several key areas for research are of crucial importance to developing reliable answers for those issues not yet resolved. For example,the epidemiological data currently available must yield to data generated from better designed and better controlled studies. New stud- ies, incorporating reliable environmental markers of exposure, biological markers of dosimetry, and controlling for the numerous known risk factors for the diseases under study, will help resolve the current discrepancies in data And it will be necessary for researchers to ana- lyze and control appropriately the many potential confounding variables present. What really is going on in smoking households versus nonsmok- ing households? Are the relative risks attributed to spousal smoking actually an identification of a behavior or a specific life style, rather than an The ETS Social Movement Some important questions need to be asked. If United States increased by over 40 percent and the results, or data, from these nine studies on per capita consumption fluctuated only marginal- ETS and cardiovascular disease were published ly in a cigarette sales market plateaued at new not on the subject of ETS, but rather on a new saturation. therapy for heart disease, or a new pharmaco- In 1975 Sir George Godber, in his published logic agent for the treatment of cardiovascular address to the World Health Organization, disease, would that therapy be approved by the emphasized that it would be essential to foster FDA or be implemented by the medical commu- an atmosphere where it was perceived that nity? Most surely not, for the data are incon- active smokers would injure those around clusive, inconsistent, and highly questionable. them, especially their family and any infants or Why, then, are these studies of such marginal young children that would be exposed involun- scientific quality acceptable to the medical cram- tarily to ETS. This ETS social movement, munity? Are they accepted outright without which took some time to gain momentum, has debate because the subject matter is environ- been more successful than all other antismok- mental tobacco smoke? Does the fact that a ing measures combined in reducing tobacco paper that is submitted for publication reaches cigarette consumption. an "antismoking conclusion" mean that the Interpretations of the data concerning ETS ordinary standards of scientific peer review and appear to have been influenced significantly, of common sense are suspended? and perhaps not always represented accurately, In the early 1960'x, when medical reports by pressures from government agencies and and health warnings about active smoking regulatory bodies, by professional health orga- began to surface with increasing frequency in nizations, and by editorial policies of a number scientific publications, there were those who of scientific publications. The latter are of spe- then predicted that the cigarette manufactur- cial concern,in that the integrity of the scientif- ing industry would soon be out of business. In is process depends on its methodologies, 1964, in conjunction with his Committee's his- including the editorial integrity and objectivity toric first report on "Smoking and Health," the of the scientific review process. Much of the Surgeon General formed a coalition known as research on ETS, including some of the publica- the National Interagency Council on Smoking tions on ETS and cardiovascular disease, has and Health (NICOSH). A primary objective of been poorly conceived and the studies are shod- this council was dissemination of information dy. Should there be a concern that negative about tobacco and health. If the cigarette smok- studies on environmental tobacco smoke do not er and the general public could only be educat- get published as such, while ETS studies that ed and warned about the ills of smoking, it then report adverse health effects are published, was believed, the use of tobacco cigarettes even when they are of poor investigative design would disappear. and of questionable interpretation?When scien- The "problem of cigarette smoking"did not go tific methodologies are compromised to this away. In the two decades following the formation degree, both the scientific process and the of the Council in 1964,and in the face of the most needs of a society that depends on the integrity extensive public health education ever mounted of that scientific process suffer. in this country, total cigarette production in the —G.L Huber, R.E.Brockie, V.K.Mahajan independent association with residual con- cially difficult, as in the case for ETS, when the stituents of ETS? This has not been done to date. available studies are feeble, the reported results are Attacking this key issue is of essential importance mixed, the actual exposure has not been measured in separating any association with ETS exposure directly, there are very large numbers of confound- from what otherwise may simply be a "risk mark- ing variables that have not been quantified or, in er" for other lifestyle factors. most circumstances, even considered, and the issue It would be nice if risk assessment were objective in question is enshrouded deeply in emotional,pollt- and a matter of pure science. Unfortunately, it is ical and economic forces. Given this situation, the neither. Risk assessment incorporates large num- works of the best scientists with the best of well- bers of assumptions and manipulations of meaning motives can be distorted by prejudices, unknowns. The problem of risk assessment is espe- biases,and a variety of social pressures. M April 1992 A141J <'iN� G4�J �✓ Z 75 E 4 Sea 's Z 7,�; L/3 R1) � 1 288 ,� �3✓t�l �'Aa ��"'� -d plc sc� p>Pr rw rid'nv w Ln W e U t{ W O� � , O I �liy`l i� /YILIYGP��rrF�Y/ ' ' � 1. 1 . "V�', Po C. CYwY.-Sn.okas� �f �4S _RECEIV`E-D,,•-�I�•� r„�EF.M �,;a seem D t77e Aefe are '-&-✓ �,� rl'he5 In 4t (,�(77✓lGGc7 rrlec, o { .L C�lC✓C O C� lV1Ph G /✓h !fir t /2 e Go e(T cs `Z �o ok C1�ocG�f . Gf.- a 9 ✓lees{ Ao-f C'AllCer�, G�owSc�yes �,�f� i l�i{ya l�ni�A(e �v GOVerti selves � e�— �So/cer�Y bi 0. LG(�ti l h ` cure ne-ect h�PrH9.- Pao n�o i�o Cc.h�Y mot tx4o-LN.[HG SC/�G55 �Iltfa O�C�)/ Zl30.YL l�kl el � , " ce�wwe fwc/ c(o * G u^ v 40,&- hu w �� du ow. 166 cve e e (� O(' �QVL0.TLA v r Lf n ah cO <5 Lt.i+ t A4w&�e--Z le S moer --- �. �r � �! lei Moklom 0 0 go 124 ZZ lldl� 12f ov- ( w � ♦ w ~ ♦ A C QL S N Q ♦ C_ i I i � ��� � a �T'�.�k9l.TC� �� s �.�D � `�� � `��f.7 "C.�v— o�t��`-� �L rrto2�3 �� u�S �car 02 2 wt/!�o �G�( � ��� N tt1 b 4. _O d � . O ���� ��o �9py ��� ���� � � �� _ � o �.�-� ��.��.� �� �� � � �� � �� .� y � �� ���� � �� . � � :, ����� � � � ; ���-�,? ° ��� ���s � �� � � � W � � � �`y6� S7S.5- M Lis e St, Q a�a�l9� San 13err7av�irla / C,e 9zyo7 f C H Q H '- °✓ / . • are Y'Pa� Q �sr e �r,..-,�pri- o' Se a PvP $weD tLf tJ O sAw D (c sE rCa �ie a¢ rea $ • 1 not N (� rys� o- av�K � SC�cov, � trca � SvudK2 f / � e ✓.[, o LeG O TG.L dpv.-C'i- rHO�Ci � a✓P..yte ✓y 4- u ..s P lid T2 v.Ca � aver- Jeac�co n L c e ac 0 /laves — e ec o w avE Hpf — We- ece e oc, ©0 -)-7419, 6- 39P&S� Pp 5"' A 11.41 .1 'Zt a c o ZS S 3L UL CL f JJ�n/�OM C v w �, 7�.tu �r,vi.vae� r , reu.09 /l�0t J Y � W sikn 0 0 F�A XA ell/ J � rr (IMlA. pAfr �'. �p ed.w4 _ - �: w I gay°Y W cm C CL U C r o r w U �} C Sn 62 6o �7 as 9 y � y N W J � V Q. CV � uj W S Y N w L: V CL LLIe- �� O c y w U m SGP.vi � fk . ev e v�i� Y W 10 J U C CL V O c y w ¢ � s w U Q l RECE(YED--CIT'( CLERK '94 MAY 10 P4 :52 fz""x�ej At erg �� /gqf ,jeRECEIVED-CIT'( CLERK '94 MAY 10 P4 :51 S o e S �1 � L, @. d 4* O Lu i c 0 e ov S Q Vh N 44 O. O 7-2 Y N W .. uj � J � � d T U G W Q W W O� W J V V Q. Y U _O O > i W U LL! fY i &JJ �( � W kC1 J T � O J LL' ? Z W U � K C6 J -L r � l d L C r w _Y i yay� Y Y � W NO JI L) li 0 d �1 6 7 � W U C K o 0 a i-- U O r � r Ln w w Co/n ME�rC.3 C �c��vc� lvD �� my 7y Tv 7 ?o,5,L--4ot ���� �jU�_S�t=55 �CPCi✓P�S � �i 1 > x � J V U � V � LL' Q 7 = W U W O� eo A M6�jrceD To T 7yio5�f CUIiv,-5- 0U/.5l�L-"55 D&PC-A-0,67 5 C /i -3 sr S.n,✓ Bo^vo 7a Mary Y N W r U C: O^ C } 1 u+ w gg 1 i i1 1 �I 1 � O U G r W � ' LLJ 7 W N n�n U � � r G t. 6 J � W U R W T -41 `Y LU L J U arm /�-�Lii 0-4 r w � U 4 W Q` 2 � N LO d U O C u; V � W p� OC ' ac s Y M W L.C.) V CL- !1 ¢ 3 S W U � W p� o 0 r Y W J d r O } 1� 7 W W cc. tv Y � W kn V Q IL r CJ � W W [C W e a _T V 0 G 3 W GJ LLI 0o -- o- / V6 i M w LO V Q d O o � r > S w w � O 0 L�� DCu1 J polq ���✓ 17- l oA Y (V W L � O 6 W S liJ U K e M_ w L, J C CT CL CS _CD } L 4i J � W p� ?z3F u�/i Y N j w U) J V U CL U � e �Q11 C�t arG,h� (� Dates / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Go Yours Truly, w CL o , w w A C Dace. To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-Banking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Ion Truly. v c� v CL c [ d LLs LU To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Yours Yruly. I w v e► CL * ( , U 0 Ui j Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. wYour Truly. a L716-All l �3,F 1y{ 4 w f9�v QCk'.� (IT 9�Yof W �. o Date To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. s a w c Yours Truly, C $i jar �Sl/ �NO�o .mil-sce-G1 K © v Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, ,,-� �gZ o X a ccoo. a oJLF-n �e�NCBrc� W C a ' U � I j 0 Date, To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Iours Truly, w q C d o � _ U.1 �L/a[i lJE�OAMAw�"�[A/ k i O O Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ,� rn Yours Truly, U O I LU O } E ��SL .J3c� J/ Uj W K i i I 3 o � Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yo Truly,�itirt� W J � U � U O O W 7 YJ CJO IV A i O ' O 1 I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � Y 0 Truly, U Ca � i U o � J Z �a4�� a Date= -_3 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w !� d Yours Truly, U DEL %t osa w w k i I O I� Date: ,L,3 / �9 I To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of j San Bernardino. I, I, E x rn Yours Truly, w v J C /U c.: o 3 `I 1� o�FS7v LLJ I f i i p O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i{ ours Truly, W J � V � a � OOJV ✓' Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino.. i b j YTrnly, Q i"' O O O 1 Date= [. - ,3 - 9y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CL Y W J •- G> Q You C? O r2 !� u S Al' �- it /a/l At a W A 0 0 Dates — To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Zl� / ca- >- T ra Ttnl�, L�J R o a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CO { Your* Trul . c d F: a i i i I L O O i I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-stinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. j i 3 1 't Yours Truly, Uj 1 U v O O c W � 7 w � c? rn W 1 K 1 p O Data) To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Yours Truly. LLJ / CL r C o n T W J tf W p� p O To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-svioting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � \ W J J Q �_ V 0. W ��a7 ' p O Date: / -1 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w .. J � j U CL H _ > Z= a i 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y Go Ui W U � U i f © O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / ���T I.rJJ ti��l�i/.�LC>G:•� Y 2 w Q Yours Truly, o STGVL S7.�r/�:n; . U � ° w �" 3 YCJ.f��er.cn s 6. � 6 LU l i o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 i x 00 Yours Truly, w � f a V o 0 i i I { I 3 ' p C Date: / z 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. UNCC�IfSTIT rlaNt.� Yours Truly, l ltiJ�v�Q . co Z C J � V d U N 1dC) O w > g W O� l i i Sq,��v�n�r��i rt o zS i Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours ly, Y Go CL M W J � U � o W til U i 1, i i 7i O Dates '7 — 3 To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-'coking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y Tour' Truly. S/3 � . 9yDs W J et fr ON fr 0 Bate: °'V To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-arcking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. z Yours Truly, , GO c� v CL c? C:I w 9a5�ds— L j U 3 1 1 { i 1 0 O Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ' Yours Truly \ (J�ti L fL/J� nom. 91 U to o c � w a w U W 0 Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I I i u'- Yours Truly, w J � 25-$02 T—L< zalo3- g Ui 0 bate. — — To the San Bernardino City Council ,4 I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CCU � I x Yours Truly$ w al Ui �-� tiJ Ui i p O Dated r �/ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed oo-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /m? P�f /S �Wr 95 T (,)OAS (ILI A�AIL ,A 5,m vs i cif./ G�oc/t.i� w co Y a Tru CY J V U � _ O y � w J � w O� 0 O Date 9 L To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x w Yours Truly. J d r— C `. ^ 39 , 1.2 j Q Q Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardi//no. A T/7 { P74n 9 gr/' 64LeW �y Pn � �Nsi yPSf, r �t.t� i 1 S� OC. /d 71�OPPC.S ,Jy /l✓�GE �P.- 6i- r/U ,f7 F ds/ �p Sye+G < i'r1 p., Yours Truly, w a 131 Ui o z yo7 - W U V W O� LY ' C Q Date: �'I� �� / / To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CA Les ei 0. Lo ni money. Yours Truly, Y w M 0 uj ScmC �nacd�r�0 CCU '(,R' lid CrLL, J Q Cr p� i Date: 7 To the San Bernardino City Council `4`4 I I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of I San /Bernardino. p� Yours Truly, co w Cm J U � W C W III j O Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. AO'5Sft- 1 !oars Truly, Lr- W U D n' Uj t p d Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 'r` /J Yours Truly, i { w t' 1666 Z 1 W p Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 'S GD i"s D�e� !oars Truly. 00 o< v ` a 0 o r lL U Q W O� f Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardi F�� ) 4)4v— D C iv x r- w iours Trol , � c+1 J Q v m)r-) o w j w U � Y 1 9 ` 1 1 1 i a 1 { i 1 - - t Dates �aq To the Sao Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y M1 [Y fr1 W -• o U � G w w U V W Q% 1] O= I i p Dates Z - 2 '� To the San Bernardino City Council I sa against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CL Yon Yuly. � x r— w �? J V U qq JJ �J O © O Date To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed oo-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ours Truly, Y r 11 W Cpl J � f CL o in�c� G aa w a w � 0 Date, f--3 - To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. OL x r r i CD w U W !Y o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-asuking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r- Yours Truly, w } n-- —�T r- ��O.e°• In17J�,2o o 7 l, w W k O 0 Date: `( —a— �/ RECEIVED-CITY CLERK '94 MAY 10 P 4 37 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-aanking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I o � C Your@ ly, j Date 2 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. D412T,(eW z M W (•l Yours ly, U LLA y07 1 Dates 2 ' To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r- 4.i Q_ C=) Yours Truly. r eta wigs ��� LL, P• `Po. B� g37.� a p 0 Dater qL To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I IYours Truly, 23Z F�FIB U �T 1-= 2 o 3 i LLt W I i 1 I p O r Bates To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-saoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w p J CL Yours Truly. W C 7A�cr�i AO 25' Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x w Yours Truly. C-? y 7 U �r W Y� I 1 y1 1 A O Date: f �� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i 1 x Yours Truly, J� r w 0- a o W U 0 0 � Date: 9y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Trulyo J Q U a 0 6 U � W � it I Date: i To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance In the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w J U 0 D � w c.> y g it Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed uo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, CC M W Q Cl U O^ C w W p� CC ' Y o Date: 7 l To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. La"_ OIL 61P un tkQ 1 Anil �LP �/1L hnr LL- c IlJC1 a Q E OAQUVL I fvA LA c� ® w Tour* ly J d U d LAJ W Cr I I O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You Truly, i W J G O � o ' � r EL CJ � W Q� CC ' i I i p O Date$ To the San Bernardim City Council I as against any proposed m-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. `Z6 I Y UC Your ly. d CS LU LU v O ga �o� Q Q Dates l ` To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y ! w � Yours ?'ru17s� J � av-r✓U/Jz/nr-. > r� 61-43 W LLJ U Q . Date / 3 _ 9� To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. f w !burr Truly, i v zSSS— Y��z�2� � a r w I i Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. :r Yours Truly, U w a. v O w w U g P� 0 0 Date - 3 - 2 y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your* Trulyp Y f• LL � W y/a N <,Qrs CL- T Li O Ste, Rte. N C14z,'f:. W > 7v v p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ /675-�/ (2,4j-ox-) S �� �L/LK7A61r%�1�6� C/4-. lours Truly. w d J � 1 ` � i W C � To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. tA cYZ � Yonr Truly, w .. J � V � � r C` r Cm r w Say? 9:A Date: 31 M ovc 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �mn+Cine i _S q 1«a l QCf 3 be a//cxued fo cloyt o% ltle A�ortyrfe k0tg1✓7eSS '}"'Aaf 1 GJUrk r0/. �fS Rw4:�✓ttS '7471 S /e rra I'&Y SD 1/ Yours Truly, 2-7 Fr s,( la PO o r W cc t 0 Dates -qq To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i W J a d 7oure CJ B LLJ CJI t r. Date3 To the San Bernardino City Council I ais against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours, Truly CL C-5 LIJ W U y Uj Y� p Date$ i-�—3- 9k To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of Sao Bernardino. I --__ff � S /U64,V Q g252!1oN IN K�stil� Ae �c.w S�navld rwl � �igPvsEp u..�..1 i I- 'iS ✓'� � Gl p \ \0.w 0.^r )AqS Yours -TJruly, I * PIK s COXAVC7 J � Qt..v C+'AIAqece IN WduF F � 3r,oki.vS �eisnWs SBDo �.9 92ya� 44k ,� AV .A.L4-t4L 6vs�vs �fUD/U� Srwkuz�� p��S� � � C�-rn�aA•"s Dates u - ) -/ 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. c _ lours Truly. W . J U CY o y W ,p�Q ��/ w nM d IPl�l40i1/.Y/L19 W C i i a O Dates RECEIVED CIl'f CIEFK -94 MAY 10 P4 :28 To the San Bernardino City Council I ass� against any proposed no-smmokiug ordinance in the C ty of San Bern rdlno. i ! � i 03 1 o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. i S5 �4 �of i w 1 U W jK Ix i I I o Bate: — To the San Bernardino City Council I sm against any proposed eo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �z M Yours Troy, w a — W cJ � W p� K � I i P Date: " 1 I To the San Bernardino City Council I it I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i You Truly. k co 2 y/ CIj CO w d c > w ¢ � s W v7 U W K Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-s>.uking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, /� p C: o ui C m/ of sQN ��✓® W U Q i I o a Date To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your ly, r— CL o f/ w U g Lij Y� a i i/Its Date x To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. To s rely, w N �V` K� �� a / o �4u1 (}Qa7 � �V0 �7 NC(l W W Cr Date: To the Sao Bernardino City Council _ I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ours Truly, ao w N CL o SAM ��nn�ltE�AM� c ���y�� LL, � Q' o Dates Z-1-1-ye/ To the San Bernardino City Council I a® against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Gf/, - -C,�- 302 S 6 �v, sT Y w N d S6' cd_ 9-2 �-O CL <� o 0 � w LU w Date. 7 — - 1911 To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x co Yours Truly, W N L% CT d C y 1 J d W CA Cr 1 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x m Q (V W f-- t C? O W Q� CC f l o 0 Dates — 1 l 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y A-0-1z- CL CL W U � W OL `1 1 O O Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I eo against any proposed w-s=okLug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, wN . u�. �,{' -W-sr- J d. d o W U Q w � 0 Date) i 4Y7„ l 1, I9T_ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, - i- /C N ✓/ 7N /l- C/`G r� U O w rn C✓ev � /�Pri�lO/. � 9Z��7 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yoars__7 Truly J N L o Y d'J Log W W a l f ( ' V Dates 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours mly. CL o t. ;;747 w Q Q� Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly. Y ^ � o r w v 2 i o Datev To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y Yours holy, rc w J � r Q- > 0 raoo - ti © O Date, / J 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I aw against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. , /. Joan r �L�°®�?LQ L_ .___ � 11 ✓l0oe%_ �/ ' °(�o� �i CCYL�C�A i C� P-0 o /I LXI ((J 077, Yours Truly, r w N J Q U U � W LAJ 4��oS O Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I ast against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You Trull. w N CL 0 U - en w w Cr E 1 © Q Date: (� To the San Bernardino City Council I aim against any proposed so-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ti r w N V Tit C VV lL/G w at `15ga w ,rdSD� 5 � � au� Date c / ��� To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r (J/ CD 7 Qw_ �,G . w w ' Uj U i i Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I ra Truly, Y N w N IT CL U W U W C p Q Date To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Z-1-7Z hlAs 4 o RE //n Qa,O- UT o L\1 e. -7-f'J R 7' i 119A -rreP Yours Truly, AAW M y w J 07 w p I iI i O I f Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aeokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y a T ly Y � �" N U d 0 w W U K 3 Q Dates c 7 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y V � W V W I 1 Q Datet'r4eR �y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. TOnr���!�ici— J � U Q. AqRJDwo (e yo v o o r W. ¢ > s E5 af af p� f i �I I � � r Date: 1 To the San Bernardino City Council 4 I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 4 f Yours Truly, J � ` q a W � a �o o � Date e To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � N Yonr Truly, d w Uj U Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I ast against any proposed no-rioting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. rQ Y � U' Yours Truly, Q, qr U r W v A - � MC Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ao against any proposed no-sauking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. Uj M U ti `; ° J/?ld gE2NAR�a111 �9,25L1� c r a w => v W C1\ Ct Date e To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly, Y /'y tz M J V ` d r U O 1 C Uj W W or 0 0 Date: d To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y //•�A// J U d U O r jK O O Date. �95` To the San Bernardino City Council I ast against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Berner a w_ Your Truly, G� 7 W i I Date: 3 3 i To the San Bernardino City Council If I aw against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. H=y-N --r4O ,6q :7 A*n- A NON —S' O-LEAvO I FAVAy — N v OK �,—ioM TO O s L0#0 :J/S y 'ro SiuorE . is loo s n,� r L LE,av0- 61 •� 06reL7101-Z s,40u�O 00 . Yours Truly, S�Y�/ 6�/1NAK.4wyD <it 9�Yoy W i I G I 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly x o 1 w J v. o c r w ¢ w J cr W O� K I Date: �l To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Uj f Y u 1 r Y O Q. d w J d' W T I ' O Date: Z7-"— To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x o Yours Truly, CL W o�� W 7 '2 YP7 Date t To the San Bernardino City Council I alust any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernj 0 — #j is bi a) AO-1 L-& able -/� A4 "5-, ,mss ag fn i na�dza�(� W 7 � LLJ U � I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. (:)� I ;�vtC/C y a w M Yours Truly, U � r- U W U W Cr I 1 i O a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, CL CZ W 3 J U � r lw Q � L LLJ fJ V W fT Q Date: z/Yf To the San Bernardino City Council I av against any proposed no-saoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, I ' Y � 577 W &n CD 2y, Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 6 Yours Tr lY. Erm LAJ 3 z e/, m6< o / IWo I � r i l Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly, Y W LU U � W Date, 6 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Truly, w IT J y I CJ { " 7 C s 1 0 w C LU I Date To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-emioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, Y M W V C- 1- 3 w kt gavo W CC O Dater 4—c, 4 To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. aa T� x _ Dora Truly. to w a' J 1 dx 7& w J V W � K f Date. 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed uo-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. M Yours Truly, w v J U d a o //aY���l/�li� w Q w J K � 1 a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w Q Yours Truly, L3 Q _ � d E y� U LLJ 9�yos' p 0 Date, To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y ON w Yours Truly, v � G IOrH -S7— 0 > w S/4N t�E2/v/3RD/.tlo W EL Date To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-rioting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. v CL Your• Truly. n _� ED s w q��o i p O Dates �— y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. G✓o�Z/c /A/ AL�—'ri?E1�it/r¢2//LNG Y L � Yours; Truly, o , W w 3s7 E C S-T, w o. o` �y /U g,9- 9-2-3 -2- waRK ; yd y �/LL Q�6�3T �✓E' r cR q��LO Dates 2 To the San Bernardino City Council I as, against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Iz!o wE vc�z �o �Fe-'1EVE 7-�,4 r r S,lfo u L IJ /j C .4 QE516.,VA7-0 A-46£ 4 s /� i I I To ra ly. v 7-5-S 19-f,"I-s "L CL Uic.� O t o w w f To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino.. / J Tout Truly, D25� Lri« f - 0-1lr� 4Z M Y M C Sl d r- V O f ei ¢ l � 3 LLi cc T i CC p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x Saz 117 (/e22 Qv� vz � w w W U W !I 4= I i 1 4 Date$ - 3/ - To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x YOU ly, d r- U O w 0 spr{�P//la ia��'�70 ZS Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I a® against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w J S. ��cKe2 S 2 /7 w cT' 3 > L p a Date: c� 9 To the Sao Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of 1 San Bernardino. e/!o/! '� Yoou/rs, Truly, Y � W •- J C5 CD c W 7 W W 9 p O Dater Q4 To the San Sian'Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours V: V CL. qCL. s X14 o � —o W W LIJ F 0 O Date, 1qY RECEIVED Cf(Y CLEFY '94 MAY 10 P4 :36 To the San Bernardim City Council I as against any proposed no-arcking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. A cy� �n Y n (1- �J l t. a Truly, . 1 I v o Dates ° co— To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. U D- -� 1 -Lk S C� 1 C_em Yours Truly, Y %0 W 449 6. _ cl J L) � nay l'� 9ay�D o r w U W d' i o Date: 31 Aam,�9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ✓/,� , / /� Your Truly I Q C C, c 2/QS qua_ o Y- W U C I Date To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, a c >- w U w o: i i o a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-snokiag ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a �p I A-)O Yours Truly, v � 9 ,) Lt z�S o w 7 W U W K k O a f note=_ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, w m l/a/C/p a = o v I w w U i I ff I ffi k i O � Dates To the Sao Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w J V CL CL r W U C p Dates z, To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /c17-,4-ID4SA1 ho VC)i re w Jam/ cey, J V Y O f V D 1CD 6 II > � 1 W :J w i © Dates p To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San�Bernardino. s� I/ouurJa Truly.2 � W J t U O^ CrW W Date$ „ / To the San Bernardi= City Council I as against any proposed =-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Ions Truly. ��1�C �ZOKJIL�9 J - U C r UJ w U y Ui tL' Fr 0 0 Dace, To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Iours Truly, x � w a C, r <, w w .. 0 9 nateg To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ��JJ//r I7// �Q71 C Fs ,�J M49 �-/6 7-1,n / lours Truly Y %D W R V CL o LL, v v w rn i Date# I To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly. Y �D W C1 C, V CJ d r D r 7 41 W A 0 0 Dates — To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w q J a � t— i W U S W F� eY I I � I p Date, 4 — — C14 / To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x �o Yoora r{ w J ..d w `� �`1o7 i I I Bate: - [ (� 94 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Youu`r@ Truly, w c"? `J Cl- L971 4.X2°/y woo o ,3f F o OIL w e w r 7� iss a Date: f�rlr � � To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-asnking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Truly,, x � a r U O �/L-r�vrrrh�ib✓� cn c}� j L W Uj W d' 1 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernn&IInF,1dino. ///, /.✓/,1y//�y"l" /f czq You Truly, 7: p, /= J ,Q C d o W W 1 i Date: To the San Bernardino City Council k i I sa against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, l O :L V J Q CJ � W U v7 W 01 p O Date: u— u — To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a Yours�Truly, Y � CL LW r Q Z W U W OL C G Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w v ours 7. �s g! o Uj w �- V i p J Date: ` l �� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x o Tru , [z `O w q J d V d n'`\ � r O U W cP, 4au �7 � M er rn er 2� Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Id Yours Truly, W o - J f � Q s 0% i1 I ©` Date: Oa — Y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-asnking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1' ain 61nop( 2 FOR 1,2 �4,5 5td- ulfS FILL !�S 6ka y Yours Truly. ell CZ 7 w U � C. YJ W kY p t� Dateg_.�7 97 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. d�.1 ___- _ a `A L� Yours Truly, ,,00 cfi e C arfll w q U Y 1 bL�AJ �Q 4'A7Ti�6l� LI v LU V o Off Date 9C/ To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x � T to w 4 U � E5 O / U p l� Dated To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-Smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 2L:1iS %� .52/f %II/!JU/tfi�iJ O-P 7a L-1 i lcJ/� �aT �en-T �Uo !U 'S/�wl�1rJ9 -eS�46�(1�he Yours Truly, J a `�MA Z)A- ) Le-- c- o w Q O O Date: r RECEIVED--CIV CLEPY '94 MAY 10 P 4 46 To the San Bernardino City Council - I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of G€ San Bernardino. i[ L A�sC fi� >✓� o c= oreT L r I� (= our. Truly. - C- {� �1 Tl c � 1- k l D X11 fY-) �- - C, T__7 Dater / To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �11tib1��2 A-Vg IN TOE o 7 wee nti� C l Furl i4 l {- I1/o OW) ce T 1-E iAJI< A6 0 1-4- /S A110A) S/NOKex- 2js f✓��_ r � �e AI-2e 7-24X 006 2 l�o&EICS Yours Truly, Y, VIJ C, G,tl -T- P Iftvrl Ji2Z a 3cxr7 N A14Zr,E I D .4be � o o r W gas U g 6 Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I no against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x - Yours Truly. w n J � 0- C=) V w w P� Cr Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-asoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x to Tours Truly, E5 C20 X05 Cap w V V W T Date: 3 J To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �c. To Truly, w J � � U 0- C5 o Cm w W Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Yours Truly, LLJ tL � o /goo V � C } . p p Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x L Yours Truly, J II CL 0 3053 AJ E. S%. S�NJ L�iE4UP, Nt7 -C LLJ U ?K LLA �2�05 . Q Q Date: — 3 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You ly Y Lf1 UL Q� W U � c c r W ¢ > s w J c} uJ Q� d Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ��5 1J� D /LjF � /{n/ L✓� /o�`W� _ 7 x u1 Tears Truly. J f"1 �O � � ✓��iM V V d (J O_ O > LL, c 40& 'Ovmc- cr w cr �d? 3 _ RECEIVED -CITY CLERM Date: '% MAY 10 P4 :45 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed uo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. j { lA J► Ml"as -i; �ours Truly, YUL 3283 Date 3- 31 — To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -?A� 11t0A) �IgNN /60/q SU41t,4,1 , - Of�451 COCIVZ+ 5Ati &/?/2/42D/ryc-0 , Cb! Ln 4� �o Your Trul , Y LL � J H E5 O O w U � W O� 0 0 Date: ` _ To the San Bernardino City Council I na against any proposed no-stinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. OCD urs Truly, Y Ill uj U � _ a r- O v � C: W W � Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, T, TT �ZO\ CL w � � v V su W U K O v Hues �l�iP/L� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. O t � t 7 ore ly. ALiZi J V U r 6 W J v Ln w CJ� © Dates 0 / To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W Y J L: O cn w w J Q W p% o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. Y lf1 LL! 0 W U y P p Dates G To the gay Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-voting ordinance is the City of San Beroardiao. Ago r—fc 4o �r+.veLrzrof-p- h� S2 D +p4cCco N L Tours 'truly, mm p�f;I� FW-J e1- ,r) W M J U CL D_ U O W 22 U d Uj C � 0 0 Date: J yl Y To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San B�Beernardinoo. ell Y Ul W -* Yours Truly, ell c.. O . 1 ^ w �o?�IOlv Date: �5/ MAP- 911 To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your tly. LAJ 2 � W W 7, OL Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. zz CL v _ Yours Truly, J � U � r- O U r• c roc w w Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, s v c �� a c�r.�q N • L.U;}D o �. CA 9z 6 ZP w U C W P, i O Date: /� ZZL1 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, V Y W f� J � + 0- H W ¢ 7 � W 'U V . a o Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance to the City of San Bernardino. !oars Tra1Tw w v r w w rn 0 �f Date: / To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Z�j Yours ly, J C 73 O U � O LAJ U s K Y' o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as, against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, LLJ J O b7S W 313t 92aos W do nar ino w U g Y` Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Yours Truly, L qt U � U C 0 Date: 3 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, LLJ d!l W `o Jn @ f�l IIwA JZO!/vo C U Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I a® against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, W L � Can /`'z`/25 W o Date. / —To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours ul7C. x �o W CDP U 0 7 U q�yoy o Dates — `t —7 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ''01 I To re Truly, i "' S3 m nDG wc9oc/ S7 v _ a a u, U LU f i i o � Dotes To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7 n 7— P�LVI l In� T—f k}'�-+At , Tours Iruly, Y Y O L 1 W 1 � U 9 !WL' P• fl fl Date: I —1 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. in wM :ours Truly. CL �,Y(-)A) E &A U 7 </ ��i� -F-zl nAl si LAJ ix W o Date. Al To the San Bernardino City Council I an against inst any proposed no-eaoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. nn f�/ . .ten..-..tai !l nfez wrGDo To Truly, Y .a 2 Q W qq O. i- U 0 W ig' Y 3 w W K i © a A , Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed sw-amoking ordinance in the City of San„Bernardino. f L U cc fL' Date. q, To the San Bernardino City Council I � against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �.�.iJF� f �.)e cC✓� ✓//L���ii r4LoT o,c lZ ../€_ri %L due F/N/E 7awnl_ / ACS RGL rn1 1�1042-7 /LP ly,)a, GET Rt,) off' 7>9-X I-2111192L Cl-r, ,Yours Truly, w .. v d Sal 'V�✓✓V' Y' C: 0 C >- f6i 96Z/✓.Q"L/ "yO Cam- w w i Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-tanking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. loan y Sow ru6�� `� 'sfi J o Seo yig CM W W U C © O Dates q g1LI j lqqLl To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, ay4x-y W ZS LU & b J v �liJ � VN,t7RDiND� C� o w W w T © O Dater 4�4 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w 0 r- v � o r } LL: W O� K Date: Y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardi --� Years Truly c+. /r J 0 U r W W qq W Y` f O Dates �/— a,� — °��/ RECEIVED-CITY CLEF.K -% NAY 10 P 4 :44 To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a1Jl,�- c� l6 6 o ) �f10lGP�S �a� C Ck" e �.f l 5 Yours Truly, r JJ 0' L" ra co A(, ZO S E. Cannra Cr callG our i pv U � li � r y0 0--f S f I ✓lac ! ca, l�Gv J- h.�•n �c C . - S Sb.e�C e s cL•e here cf v 4-7 r" i�, � ( O' C Crn.P h-� Ca / ffe "5 i ki PPr ,w� No,, l2 fs , ,f 11 -s- w;It e th AC V�� L e to�J— inc [v YGv he id 1"5 4f d-v le er o wQr�- Uo . � o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r /- �la�fi/ Z Y Yours 7rulyr ffir0lTl� CL Cb W. o f Cc�J la? Bates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r Your T IL Y � W C J V � Ui �_ LIJ 0 0 Date: `7 To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i w Your Truly J � V I W° � I 9l3 j'z <io7 4L.1 �g 3 I E 0 0 Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. j Your@ Truly, Y W J CL rimer-L -V-L W vv LLJ i Date To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i I To s Truly, Y Nl f 41 CL U o M 91Y�a j w 11 U y kk I i t i i . Q V Dates —�— � To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �1 I Your rely. v CL Q qz L( W 1{ LU I � I © v Date t To the San Bernardino City Council I aim against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. j x Yours Truly. CL N LAJ W f'1 J V U o W i f Dates r I To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance In the City of f San Bernardino -\ th o p T �e �--� a Truly. Ff r 1'-a uJ Y W N z 1 p y / w .s w 'J .a W � CL fY r Q � j Dates r ` To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. C-r o f� eYZ Toure Trull C E3 o � '— ''E SAN 3���NARA'tio U p .. late. — g — 9 y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i o Yours Truly. 111 p-(so,-1 W 5631�>(Jo . CA , 92!Ves W l A I i i a Now Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly. WQL Y � / o t� SO4 rw. 9ozrf�f LLJW V i i Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-amok o dinanca in the City o San Bernardino. JA mi r LIO T r Truly. Y Cl\ VC � N d !� O r L � W 7 W V UIj nC Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aaoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. d4l 1111 � Lours Trul . WN � J V r r I? O LL_ Q W J � 11 1 t G Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. !!I� -7—h Pre O N er cy � 5 4 m a -� a nJ e r'j"') Who l rke� 'fo 5w, 6.ke W ,.QK lie ha'Q ti 76e c�ouHsal SaicQ No . ��C 52[ae � .!!iz o w W �•2�L �D �1 r9 �✓/ !7/5 ��X [X D(/B!�S T /mil/ 7'1 e . !oars Truly. C /E a CL CIq i w C" J . a U � C> ¢yr W U W Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. AtiC rn lbl \ � c � .� �Q 9 wz --- Tour* Truly. � 04 �1 pl 7 :., o Q Dates ^� To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino j wa Truly, v a C5 o jw L LU p Dater nt� To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 b � 1 P (lca\ 1 f C 'A\ 1 C�1 ys +C) w i o A S a .J Ohl + �r PUblI' c A� y `\ arkU recsx, oA O'Q� w DD Your@ nnTruly, q _J9 OzfT U o r _ w W J p�Q W OG ' t v Date Z/ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 /� S'r7 �l yon tz A I Cn P Tours Truly, J rz �-Az-- Y w , / 22S � �` n�Gvoo J � C? d W w �. Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. - Yours ly. W C.; o U C I 0 0 Date% _ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. !oars Truly, 0% O T S ,zs LLI J W U 1 i 0 Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly$ w N „ J V v Cl- C, O^ w � w w v w rn f �i V p O To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N Yours Truly, w .. T 0PI -sON� 7 CL. zAiJ VE 3 o y w � 7 s: w d v w rn p Bates � _ To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-noting ordinance in the City of San r�pard�i J ours 1 x cV cz �J w J � U � w W U W I i 1 3 i O Date: RECEIVED-CITY CLERK '44 MAY 10 P 4 :32 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed m-ssnking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. P Yours S i { p O To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. To a T'tuly, J � U � CL. w U W p O nateI% - --9zl To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i j Your* Truly, I. i n )rcoue os- N mr 3 Fz13 (4 N s l U � c2rjl'no ClAr9 t LU j L LU a Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7 Yours Truly, co F5 CD Y J � t ' ` o r LaJ J � w p� CL ' Dater — —E To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Z#V-11 04Y / 6v ,'. Your* x / w 0 CV CL J � U 3Y w w �2�� �1 267 Dater , To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y M J 7GgaTru.1 C Q W Q�4"l3/ . o 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. rs Truly, Y � W W � �s 0- Z �uQ c> c 0 W >_ W ?23c /y- W C Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours uly, CL x o r M o 0 w W U W K 1 , Q Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / ��&acc n /',s a4) z2z6G 4-/_ O4LLf � Ce °ms 's `�Oe Y Yours Truly, W M f l J L: V CL c; o LL Dj)do r4 ,92 /O w II � y/ /y�,, Dace& i To the San Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. Yours Truly, W Irl J � V � h O V I C > LL' � W CJ cl W CT Q © 4 Bate. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your ly Y M LL M Lai J � d _r U 0 c y - � 0 0 Date s__7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W M v Yours Truly, r1,912 g�li q i O O Dates �4-- To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. • aaa Yours Truly, ��ti Q--mac �',�•,� W C=) C3 o o ?rL 14 47 i w i 3 W 7 U 1 � t µ t © O Date:To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ci-i IJ� �h n V-rv> > J C• '� S veS . Your Truly, v CL i— O b?c7 p 4 Date: M �s-- ti To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-asoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Etw LU Y d /aLa Y3rh S o o��nnc�vr.a .C� � CI a�LbS W U Wii' I i MEOW Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-seoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours holy. c, i asp Y O ffk W M � v G l Lt. U Q W � �lt 1 I t p 4 Date, To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ra Trul Y C> C CL Fa.#v 7 W U w Dates / l To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. aura Truly. CL J C U m Uj U y P� Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, .2 15/,4N.teE lSic,r�.�}i x Z,2\70 C�O¢.� Sr 9,zYOy j d � Z3 r O, `�c E p O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I av against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �os /��•�' •9Tecy /J/e�os �c /��s- Yo CS 'gtuly, a o W U K p C? Date: I ! ( T To the San Bernardino Ci(((ty Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y N YO 1]. Q' M w Sr } w �a �c� Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. T/✓cam r,-ejo y Ole , G u 2i.cl SAS TA rc=� Cii3r Ci7 f✓I r6/ l/v�gcrc Z�, , "C24" �f S 4//1/1% GuG /h 9Y G�/✓i�� Yours Truly, 3z 6s' S�'r�u�uv,D�I Y Q W CL 9 2 5`ds� U � O w W W _ { Date, CI ;'r�d✓'c.:C. �J / / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, cli LAJ J Q O W W U p 4 Date: -J -� RECEI'V'-D-rl'(Y CLFPK '94 MAY 10 P 4 :32 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I( BUJ J uz Tours ly. cM Tq C � t, LAJ Cr Q 4 Date: Ze2 / To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino I I i r Tours Truly, w CI. J /S, C: O D r W ¢ w J � W p� OC f Date 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. % Ml) /n l n✓ 11� u ° / u � Yours Truly, Y o_ w U Uj p O Dates I 1 jTo the San Bernardino City Council I i I m against my proposed no-Woking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, '� o. �8�3 c� s•• W C 0- LAJ 0 W U i 0 � 3 r Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. f I Yours ruly, i x 2Y, W N 1 � L. CD C �J O 4 W = ULA 4LJ jK o a Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-asoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your* Truly, T�T �J7 cYr- N - ��✓r' i 7 rr � w J <f C.i a ' y Nil Z�12.��a L�H• U Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I asm against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I 1 i wcri Toure rul . — � v ` d � I O w $ W Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ff1 1/ fr✓C�-� Yours Truly, w i33o A-)o .4 s o o �. �'.fi✓ �et.✓s.�,-•a Grp w w U W p� d' i O ✓a,, Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I o against any proposed no-asmoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7oar@ Truly,. J V d c o � o r QL``Q7 LL: C 7 W Uj W C 0 0 Dates ZAPI- `I To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed oo-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Sa, PAS ho,Ye L:'4+5- /� Ism Llk Nm -!,5 ,k6 eat Tours Truly, x w JAI E- P .6vxN5 Nr soy o N Ilyc Ave W U C 4 Date: ) l To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ,-Yours Tru J L7 1 CJ o r eu � n w :J w a Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. f Yours Truly, Y � w M / i- U � y LL, C-3 e cc Q. f c.� L bateAwk L To the San Bernardino City Council I I an against any proposed no-snoking ordinance In the City of San Bernardino. i i Yon • Tro1 , t x N w .. J rL L% 0 r G W V W C / G i Date. 7 / I To the San Bernardino City Council C f[ E I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You Trul . � x Cy -. w .. J � L d T C7 G W C-) < W K it Q Dace: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i I To s Truly z N w j J Li d r G V _ o r c.J w o: © 0 Date) < �� To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-emking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a Truly. Y w [r1 Y•�\ d � T W qxq � w �. Dates I q To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 Yours Truly, � X e — 6/ 74/ 442''/E J c y Sz w U W OC Date: �� I �� To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. AO co/4e �Joct9nJ , Yours y Y C W 2Z3Gs If - C U- s� A �k W U W o 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-swking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, t+l W � � U Q CL L O y > z4 w / U W Date: z -9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of rnardino,j e� Ir Yo Truly, s N W 333r a o � 3 E Lu LLJ U g i I i 1 i Date: I �� To the San Bernardino City Council I am�againa ^-^ sed^-^ sed no-smoking ordinancg in the City of San Been rdi -- ----^ ` N W q Yours truly d U W 07 4Y ® 0 Hate. To the San Bernardino City Council I aw against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. Y Trmly, x N w U G (SlitfJ r C � E W {yU� C o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, CL Y W U yam{ w 4n Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 71d7 � ,J Yours Truly, x O L W Cl � v E5V O O Y w ¢ s w :J C w O� 3 � Q Date$ Z To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i '2 IrYL7 Yours Truly, Y o m M w J � V � r O GJ � w w w c o � Date; -� 1 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. \ (\� o S \V - ours Truly, Y M CL f�l a W v a w W O Date: i I, To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. vre /✓v,�c /m�7 /Ll�� ��jl�' wYOU ly. J U r- q U O pC 7 o } w C, U � W p� q �-yDy i i Date \a\ 1 To the Sian Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x w tM lours Truly LU 0 s�5 i I i i i I Date: '112-1 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. M Yours Truly, C: C � d Y S6 76 LLJL d1 doh. W C � S W J C o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, ri C1 Cn J �> V v o LU C P � v Date To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours ly. 257 Y 0 ir oC M W 0 o w w © a Datesy To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-anokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. w � o q w J V w U i © O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-ssmoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, O&,L 4U x 4Q � . R-D hin CL w r W U g W Y` 3 � 1 Q Date, r To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your / p o W U g W Y� Q I �p�p © NgCeAi tN0 k To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of j San Bernardino. f DF i / ZW d1 /Coff7S I Tours Truly, '.. l✓/# YNF P V 671 N k s LAJ a_ � o sqN ay� Naoa/a� o ! i w � w I f . p O Date To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w �v. Youra Trul S :J W � f LU 1 4 © 4 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x M Yours Truly. m w C CL W F-qme(AolfvlC� LU P g2yo5 d o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, Cn w �? J r d } F W v W i I �j I Dates 6 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w q / CL �id/�+QS �7a4✓� LsJ da � g!y w• /I,�Ztn w s t �w sSRN �B/2-�nn.CD/t�1ly o Dates qq To the San Bernardino City Council I a>t against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. J ,o,n -61U, IL,�A Tours Truly, x M Q °- a r Y) eo9 /tr A6 6/ v o LL, U A 1 1 1 f Dates 3 /� To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, cia r1 J U V `. d i— o � `in�io� /��/l©ScL 7fIYIr C Bat*: To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. J /5i8/ ./ d�z r CL Cam, c U C--) r U- 6 W U Q K o Date: ? � � REL'E!V r,_-I; -94 nAY 10 P 4 :43 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San BBeznardioo. 9V Yours Truly, n.j sr C=1 64 y � W r ��,�e Dale: To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-aaoking ordinance in the City of San Beermaacrd Q tliw/S oar Y � W Q J � V Ci W U W C a Date. b '. To the San Bernardino City Council - I as against any proposed no-saoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardinof i Q n;N - �L o�X y s u n+r7 2� 0_. " ty00 - V4,�.q"r Tears Truly, L . W rn v f w rn 4 I o � � E Date. i To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ems, C 1 S(-,) rn ��X Yours Trs,1T. W s J Q U d r C w w U W OG o a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of Be- Bernardi Tours Truly. a ,aw .. J � U o i o W 9 1 +1 © 0 Hate. �l To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Be ardimo. 1 ", oo A ` d _ 4 in0 gal 1A)D al /W . mor /-;; . r Truly, �iyls L UAL � r w e w v � w p� 1i d Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, 1� Y v d' 0 U b W C P I p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours;�yT�ruly. n � (L U CD f �- W U 9= Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /1 JjS TC,42 ,1 10 T.5 Sh" CJ G /t' i Yoars , w v IL (0 3 Lv t, c C) y 5 , 3 cwt °/ !i"ate u.r j U y 1 W Y, K {I I 7 0 Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Iours TTrruylyyj�{��( x Q J cv o C 1 K 4��j V& N {� o � "' U K I I { Dates 6 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I asm against any proposed no-aasking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. t wo("/c 44/cf .46C 9CGLs Alts:' 46 4,jd Lw 04"9 G✓ a( ,S d i C k(,-: f , w 7T J � a Yours Truly, o W w S Ae, C12, i a Date: c), To the San Bernardino City Council I ast against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �m DA,O T1fG.aJ m �n �m Z2212 Yours Truly, (2, �de �„aVO W Cn Nt J 0- r Ci _0 G � u: ¢ � S W J Q W OC O n Date. ' To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. L(/JL( 4,Q.P- l'n 111 Yours rely, Y W � W U g Lai fL' Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 t , ` • n ll —T r A.6 w vy I Q CL G � W -Cryy .sue-N- ,.•�J LLJ - - 0 O Date. ��g RECEIVED--Cl('i CLERK 94 MAY 10 P 4 :34 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -1I AS A 00.0 !�-N10'pJ< (L1 Fprnmz) auOK"_b ' }-4OW)NER L AJ�y o"�-fZ' vifF t,W1cL ��c(ST �£GAkI�USSof A LIM" 0"- �f fi '�xP�4KP�s/ A40 6''A 7wt_-- �1 i1 vl,� '-77c� --0 '5 0 1 CZ6 rs cr�S U./ col �h S Ua6(51A7IC1J " ^err v �,ti C t ()0 676-, T�-M F c r PaiLV_I_& eAt(R w 7)t7s s�rg1✓� Yours Truly, O rN z e SVPA�CVZ'_(( I . a i1b4W t•�S7�y, -rn �s (s, 2 4 N, �Jte AS 's (64"5, �A GIB R rGf r' TO PU d�S _M t-) t6'jc;4L- —rte- 4 a Date$ q ' 12-9L� RECEIVED—DP CLERK '94 MAY 10 P 4 .34 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. � � to A .a (1n �.�tr 2 �� /� Jn�o iil.An on �/�. ✓ Tours Truly, 5 f3 2 �fi v /1 iL< a i f i a j f Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Jv Yours Truly, aIr7r�� L e��,f2 w C 2°I � Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed oo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x 00 M ,412/ScY3 w kP �J J V 45l8 �]T0,17 a v f � ci W Q W U W W, 3 � 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y N W � —f Q Yours Truly. `� BL w LAJ ��- 3 fi I 0 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r x _ Yours Truly CL w v v u O 4! Uj i o To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. w lf1 Y OLI/! s/ AA ,� av o > W �erynaw(i�,� ,Cm 9ayQS P Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. wv Yours Truly, -J d e r CJ O r �l c j Date: lu� azl To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x ^ Yours Truly, e W uj I F I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordioanea is the Qlty of r NYC Truly. UD w J U d r O U u: U � W O� �a Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-seoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w v 33SID /U, J l V C' � d g O W U W Date 9Y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. e Tours Truly, x r CCIt W U O flAIY�(�R Vx1JJF W d U �{ � A� G i Date: 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. t x Yours Truly. CLr CL U O^ 6 ` LLJ K A 7oj-� E IIf MEOW p Dates WiL To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Years Truly. BEE W a v w w U LAJ 3 O Date= Lf 3 9 y To the San Bernardino City Council I ams against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Truly, J ��s CD 1AAj © Q Date: �) 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. L 12,CAZ-L � 0�,Lieve-- 2 G,4 � It 4cLd.j2, S -f+► c) Put- Yo Op, Yours Truly,P^� (� U.. V �8 ty . w . J � e Y °' c��� IJe�fl�1711JC� lY J W V w Cn K p O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed m-sooting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r �f Yours Truly, w J U CL Y� U 4 CWY' Y` I I - o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / � r /'ten((/24 LL4dI�f/ Fb ',L/() J Yours Truly, Y. 0% LL W J � L) d U � V C Y W W O O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y 04 IL Cr � W r ? ivF � u as see LVil W 902 spa 7 U g fLW' �^ i I ® © 4 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly, ' J � U 0 w Uj u, U Q Ui P� a o Date I To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7oure oly. x �� �r D✓� a, To -� W M �' 66- a `f o w i k O Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. n r Yours ly. Ui ui Ui Ui Q U C 7 i V Ce Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w � w J � U d r U � w c Yo &�� � s M LLJ g Y� p O Date:` To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San BernardLiinnon.,,,, F Tours ?rely. Y CC) CL.W t*) 0 w c 7 s w U cr p p I f Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. .d - a CD Yours Truly, cm iaLh LLJ K 1 i �f I Datel To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed oo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours, TrulyG�/� Y W CO i a S78 = o �, <�anUart ,na w i W U �¢ K P i i Date r To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. s Yours Truly, Y co - w J U CL c LLJ w w 0 0 Datez To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 0% - w q I Yours Truly, U I r w w w rn 7 �4 1 E Date c7 To the San Bernardino City Council I ae against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. { 1 i j ! • hullo 1 w � d c � r w W 9 U LAJ Date: i To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � CL Li Q d Y- c To Truly, w > 4 �� w U g eu Y"' i i Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Yours Truly, w a LL, W 9% 0a I F Datel To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-owking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly W co Uj U � _o O � W Q W U R Or ON { 4J Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r I Yo�urss�Truly, CJI�I� L r J Q U _0 w > s w Uj a: � © Q Batag � RECEIVED--CII'� CLEF.K -94 MAY 10 P 4 :39 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yfnts truly,. Amw � p O Dates^ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /'etc o%cC��z�rce Gc�i�/ f1vr7` �s'i�ess % 71 �s ��fi G�lSf%�Un� Tours Truly, w a► 0 LLJ W � PzY 1 I Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. T Yours Truly, , W 39'/3 / «vol/ZZ SA� /�ra nod C . W U Uj Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. To rt Truly. Y w 4 U CL O o w w J Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardi C? to r Sruly, _ OA (� J o: w J -it J V LL t O U � L 6 w S w LLA A I o I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, U LAJ P% r- U O^ lL ¢ t1.t U R Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w Y r U Q J C. T Y r 1 v CD o w w Ui ' I Q 0 f f i Dates �-3- To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / / rte . Yours Truly. SIZZ W � Q v c- o w � � v O O Date,_ °� � CEIVED--C11'( CLEFT' 94 MRY 10 ?4 '51 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aaokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. t� C~/ Laura Tra17. Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x � w 4 —� 0 Yonry U A c � L � �� a v Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i I i I i I Your& 7. LD r yo7s�o� W U g w Y` C t Q O Date 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. f �k i I Y r W Q —i ours Truly, U CL L 0 r o r > La w U y w Y' i i Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yoou�rr@ -Truly, w ►!? Y,1�� �Ii J U Q CL v o LM w U W C Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You a Truly, w 7r U � r- U � W :.J C= O p Hate: qq To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a T- I I FsF Oflnv\. . i u • Truly, „ o R � � W Ln C }- w ¢ w U <r W O� I p 4 Date: 1 1 lb the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. urs rdly, Y � W J v C: O- .v O G 6 w S 7 Q W � l3= o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-stinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours ul , x w W . . C � C i I ` O > � 7 w J � W Q� i 1 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w R Yo Truly, d r v _O c y w U W CC I I Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of { San Bernardino. ,1 4 t F t� 1 x IOOr Trnly• W � / J � U d i- U O� D W U Uj f 1 Dates '2 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /�C � IJ4ZG-EoN �C�y�✓�-� L S� y�' 12-/)GKS To VoklL Tors' Truly, Y W o W U g W Y. V To the Sao Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �cTGJAA r1Li 4 v sAa .h 1 ish,,\ia. Yours Tmly, 0 w w w Uj g P 61' Date the San Bernardino City Council I a' against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, i cc TT V � _ n 0 s W W C 1� 1 Date /T To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. v 1 . v o Tonra TIr 7. LLI I = O LL� E. r �( Date. el—e� — 9,/ To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Ionra Trul� w Q v D r w a w I � 1 i� i © SQtl&rni ��IaO Z 5 Date: _ �7 — / 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed uo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, 444 62 62 x w N cc J V d U 0/9 r C � LL 6 W �1 C Date: U / ' ` C;�y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. cYC r Yours Truly, w N Z N Z✓y W 0 C� q2y/a Cr W . rV Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y r- / `, Q o r (2A w y� 105" U W C Dates y 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yor/urys �Truly. [c M W .. d W ,a, W 41C v Date: ('�/ b To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Gay r� wa a4l-y ad a yt s o m ZM;,a6 .as 92 t-4e 4 S gels TFr�m � And .9LSa /.✓ rEEFer r,✓oveg Itr „C bEw1 L/�/6 li 7PAI 7-,// S fYl gZVA- p Tours Truly, d W � . � ,Bvsi,✓Iss vr✓.✓�aL Date. =-� - y To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the ty San Bernardino. CL i 9 I Your y, V � r G y L W U W [C Date: �— 7 / To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � w N Yours Truly, J � o U Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w N C- )I v Yours Tculy, CL U O w �a?L� w U 9a s�o� i 0 O Dates 4 _ 7 - 74 To the San Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / JAI C-0 `71-h c - fY/ x N Tours Truly, Ljj N / gYyG��ak l� K� J ttt E U r Data$ l To the San Bernardino City Council I a>m against any proposed oo-sooting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, laJ N �O J `� CL u. I �o Cr o a Dates Z&1141 Z9-y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y N W N -� Yours Truly, LLJ e w acv 9.0 y ' O Date: p To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. - AL � �u ao � � 19 /� , W.Q @LLYti &W4 4, AM vwvj ( 0. 5 . GEm /Or) - -)mokQ/� Yours Truly, x � ¢ w N J U amp CA U j&/ �UG CAA w ga y VM w a p O natet � 7 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Lt, A. �rza d a w a9z ,mss �,� 1 i e2e Q u�Port of e cue + - �� d �kdaav�; a, d doh ex �:tl/� 'V�yi7.�.puu�.Q CLLR AM. C�-,t.�2L�i.pJ( • �E' -�Mr{ Ah Ov,Q Y XG..E A-wv�u At,4 ? Tours7ly, u� ¢ ? S w �'�ltiavee L, be�-ts rn SaK ✓3e�-nun-d;��, c�9 9zf�cv I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 4L-4 LL , ode 5 bRK5- 5120 �s k"k-, VS W .. O- L 9��a � C o i Datez To the San Bernardino City Council I ais against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. you 0 17. e « LU %? W U Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I You Truly, x r W CV C � d I O cr r G }¢ w U � w T Date s To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly• Y N w CV o a 2.1 ApT A w V. w ON E 11 (�� j Date: '�T—� '"� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your ly, N w W .. J 0- v � v C � g W 9 s U Uj w k p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. l�C i �!Gc �4 rl6 hl -Swt n K I p 0 e-Vt ILL A-n C _ f-oe— -rc , e� T t I-KIT l AVVA 4- T-Doy a2 j<, fl.Y10 Wt,i t,,- W f. JQ- ,tJ bUC fnl5-(6wikA ,3 v tovo- � a-ce'a'� VIA,�' <P t,A-c CU ( F rs Truly, Ltj t Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y W N t- c lu w w rn cc Dore, To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yo�uA/rs Truly, Y W fV V CL 1-+ Q w rn Ex Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed so-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /(�ld`✓-s/yJ�Ki�riG .S�cT�v��..S �9�� L�✓a��-� f Tours Truly, ]c. N W N J o w W ?K Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, , A Ex Y { W N (/ U CD �v L; O � r o y 7 w LU g Ys 0 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Trul y, UN iz N w o c - �0' S � W U g K Y` o ` Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Ln o o ua w U AW C i 1 Bates To the Sun Bernardino City Council I am &&&last any proposed so-sooting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. wN !oars Truly, CD J � U 0. o >- w Bute — To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �A 19 C' lliq ` �r. N —' v Your@ Truly C-3 CL o id�— U 7 Cr I ' � v Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed oo-aeoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ Yours Truly, w .. w �Z-4 :J Q w p� 0: ' j t I f I I o 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-esoking ordinance in the City of San Bernna/rdino. in w N Toure Truly, v v / _ a — C, O LL: W C.J W f 4 Hate.To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / L N Yours Trul , CD w . . J � d J � I 1 I O I Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, et CV �O U .IM liJ V � � ,Q Y 0 V I w � gZY07 6 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /�� A46-K—/J�/Ly]io 1f�t iZ Tours Truly, IL G a �w W U W C i 0 Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I ae against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I G Y Zrs '(1L1), w £� G e w � � W ON 0 ,S b Cam.o cr 1 0 Dates / — j / -;K To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Be rdino. Tours ly i J � ` o c� LL. G 7 E w V w O� p a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. L Lr) TOUj TYu Y, N U- V � d � _O O LLJ i . Q Q Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x _ l¢il N J r- U O U W � I I a Date: ,/ ��- To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. v - 5 ! u. / 07 As f-O�u: /iT tt �O Sic✓l Z;L C/VII aZ hrs S/no/43i/S /4"") vn 7NN Fr�oT G i4/r �r0 /9l/ �osr�� x�rJ�o C W Nv Sur/���T da Yourg Truly, Uj J G+ d J/9il/J3ei�VS*�G C(n 0 91v�j ti Q LL, . I i i 1 Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. , T a Truly. a a o yv� i J d . O Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You a Truly. r U � o r 2ko� UJ W w . . O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssnking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your , w N J � d E3 o > . W �-2 yv7 LU Dater l I To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �h 5 ro�oS r5 c:. r 4A) o -i Srna�—W , DWh/a�/ bA �uSBtt��� . Q� N trw l nor (c.a- /c,�e� JLM4- S ! 1 YOU ly Y T 2 N W it/�SO�I/ d 1- O T 1 � W O� C` o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. s / / /�z„M � ✓Pt_i`.�/7^. p(T/j Yours TL U. W ZL v f�00- Date: 3— 3/ q 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. el I Yours Truly, c� W e- U O 1 U W O� 0 o Date: ' To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W N J � 0 u.i �r t © O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-emokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. :224 =6411L 14 llz� Tour* Truly, Y � N W ADD �, 0 -t� 334 w U �{ w p� 1 i bats$ To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours ly, Y _ w N U J O d � E U Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Ber/nardino. + �� APc✓ M cA'P m ON eG 4o46 J4 i /Ow.✓ «. N v Tonrs Tml . _ i r o v yss�'s, Uj I o i Dater � - i To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 Yours Truly,f Y � o: N w c r u � w w Date: -3/2 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. rc�tifi QS SvhdkaU c7f b�SfNe� clwn,e�5 � e'{' �lV' owN _�1C1T9 I^e4c�uYSi.lnr , �i-S /55 2 . J C d Yours Truly, ~ O cc c � JQw &evwardiwa 941/3 O 4 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-seoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. .� � zx-le� NTCI x l xo y• L`r;9���� �c� dAd- see a Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. (l S bn --TIJ_as L'O'- I !27 Z�:� CL ''- Yours Truly, Z3 cl � W �)Jc; -3 3�7 i l Date, To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. &1L w c4 Yours Truly, U @ CL 40 o w W 0(0 3 1 i a i 0 4 �j Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w � Yours Truly, CL Aid YEN o u, C.') A Date ale i To the San Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly,,, 11-, dMI-- d aa" 6� x o Z?q 0 Le.Wt Q(A W N J d S4 LZ's '74 VA )U' (-a � o � o Q w v W i I 4 4 Dates �— d To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ...�.rJ(p� am LXne� a W N Yours truly, 0 IWZ CL t W 'j13 (2 U Sri Date. �/ 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ti*T -;112c y,1Z A)O%' A e TAKenl AO/9�4, .z' a-w . y a/yrs old. wN Tours Truly, J w ¢ i i Q Date 14 ! U To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. am Yours ply, Y � N J � L � L1J i {]I i I d � j Date: 4, To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours 1� /�J/� w cm [c � L L s r U 0 r w w U g a P� o Dates `7 i To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-snoting ordinance in the City of j San Bernardino. R � 4:2 42 Yours Truly, Y O w CV J d H s � � �b � a r 661 U C i a Date: / `e72 ` l To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. J CA 2 _ e9 e 20 z i w N lours Truly. CL o n Cd or 0 w w Sfla.L a G►t 4 x467 a i Dates I f4G To the San Bernardino City Council ! I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i w Yours Truly, o W 01 I Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ✓ Y o romR ly. W N W V � L_ o G W U �} W O� 7 0 Date. L-1 - 5- q L' To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y M w w N L� K - Yours Truly, G. &A,4 ,h w . 740-41� 0 � Date: 5— 9 i To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. wN Yours Truly, CJ v ho✓�eY1 V �v� V�. 1L CL W (J 0 U i o Dacet 91 To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. \ I r ee ao rn lip Q-le w N Yon • Ili• R 2 c y mss' W 2. i i i I , o � Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Dv�-- ff0/cam w N Yours Truly, CL 910 1/57� 0 tr i i o a Date. 147Ael,z To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ez Yours ly, M lio1T��Gl�Sf � 11J N L� � G Lzi ya slo�/ L o 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i !0 7ru Y tz M w N c=. e CL c_: G w >' w LU o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x M cc N Your@ 1 Cl- Cr J o r w � w A Cr O� 1 0 Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x N Your Truly, W, Q U d V vvcW U W i 1 0 v Dates / 5� ` To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, Ly LAJ � N a v w r /j�/ 1� Date i ! 1 [ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your T y, Y M CL U V O 7{ W W a 4 j i Date. RECEIVED--CITY CLEFK '94 MAY 10 P 4 :23 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-enoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1244 -Je1A VvA 112 41�ZdZa /2/ C" &A e ur�vh1 -j �LA Q.�Yl ours y. WAq o t 0 W&L& U I � 9 Dater �13 / 941 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 i Lu N U Q ' C- Yours Truly. ~ O o � - > 13-7 W . (D L.I V F. ST, �3 wLLJ cc U g S^ Sus bgro . Ca 9z41 O I �i I Dates 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. C4 w N U Q d tAjr- o w f . © S�n Qcrn��O - �,5 ✓ Date. r1Dri-1 -J, X2/9--4 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. � n) (�cr f�q/i i� /�G ccC �f�• S � < f r �'� / iJ�LI i 7`0 h�ac � 6G .4 n6�/ mec�iu� Sorv,eU�erC c C1 N Yours Truly, C d U O w ¢ Date. Zzi To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. (`des Y Truly. V CL t- U O LL' 4 7 � W w p� CC ' +1 V Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of ! San Bernardino. You5i Truly, Y O W Uj N U 0- CD cr- 9a�f ty) � } W J V W T Dates Z — ` — To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours rely, ,�Cr CD Y CL c: o 0 W Cr Cr Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, iii N rTA_. 0- 2 L } w 91 :Y " Dates J To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N YOU y, J Q U CL U 0 /IRRJ W U C 9 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ti: N W J Yours Truly, Cm r a r w U g 1 . Q ate. To the San Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x :omr Cx . F i W (V J , C.) At LLJ Omo r U 2/a' t 0 0 Dater / / L/ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino.y V&jJL �I y M UJ N v Yours Tru17, CL V O^ PnsD P, O i E w �.,( Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. Youra Truly, o rn J V U 0 37CeCu UUrc�A f V/Ekl CZ) y LU C Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I av against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Yours Tr y, w a a dL r C3 O o Ir W Q � Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r"z n1 Yours Truly, w N LLJ LUI �a�w Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Gs?Qt uct2(,o r�iL�is Xf 41 Cc�c� Tours Truly, CL Uj Y k o � W ��yos Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x rl 2 N U V .. tL r O r w U 0% w Q� [L ' 0 0 Date i I. I" . S 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yomrs ly, Y CN Cr o } Cr p Ca Date: J �J-0 T y To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �v S fnt �SJ CN?<,2 OT 2 Yours Truly, Y Q a0H tj 2 �� iI LL w r: LJ d r Q 11 O y W +� ti: U Uj G Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I aim against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardinno,.., % Yours Truly, N ` - W .. p a w w U V W €T K O Q Date= 4-6-Z4 4 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aeoking ordinance in the City of San Remardino. _ L-L N J02 QO- You�rs ,yruly, w N Q. i- CJ O C�q W Cr Cr P • v Date. ✓z� �/9� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. O �O dCr SNY©BBL Wes^ P t 1� 7onre Trul C9 ��vl"n"*`jam Q LL, W �. 0 0 Date q ?/ 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. fi You\\fi�r& Truly. W CV —Sc QuC D,4 o � o W cc 0: E s Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �J l(�n�^cz j�I�� u/�, Yours Truly,fl \.eyLdXdGQ_ 7�2-lX-wl(.�t w c CL ot� w w o< f p O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council 4 I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Tours Truly. W N W CV S W C �. 9ztiQs' W Dates i To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-suoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. your Trulyy,,/ Y N �/• r/CA��-fYWN`1J W a LAJ o 1? 4L.> � W © 4 L/- - 9 �/ To the San Bernardino City Council k I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. [ 4 Y w N Yours Truly, o r U Or � p 0 DateI IA4, RECEIVED-MY CLEFK V4 MAY 10 P4 :22 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-aankiug ordinance in the City of ' San Bernardino. a I Sze �o Dino jRs�%tai G`cNy�iN� /I71' Yours Truly, 111(e V4-7"�, Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, CL CL U � C W U LU 1 C Q Date: / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y _ w TO ra ly � d i- �: o w } W W C i 1 i © 0 Date$ i To the San Bernardino City Council E I au against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. A1eIr Yours Truly. a a W W 0: 1 I Date: �/-F— To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 1 Yours Truly, Y W Q I J L3 d 1 � v o w U LLJ K i I i O 4 Date:-W I To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of R San Bernardino. rs Tr y, w. 4w CL 2 Z ar-vl ts2 , q LU C-3 A 9z3d� Uj i Dates � To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-sooting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, 1 111 At 1. i Y ^• W S, 13 C64. 22-gC7 W U Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y N W J U Q r U O yA p - L 7 E w U tr Cr i i 1 � p Date t L4 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i 1 wYours Truly. I (� ° i l 92 Y/D a > w U Q W Cr ' • O N0 Cl� - fir;. Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I amt against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y- CO Iour Tru CD G } 7 � LL W 9S Cr - 2-� yDates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aeoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. s, Yours y /�G V, " � l -- w J C3 V d r- y '1 Q Lti V � Cr p� Cr 3 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tamura Tr I'• Y 00 wry U CL C.: O O } 7 � W V W P 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y w .. U � d U 7 W U g w Y* C Bates ---7-- 9'` To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W N Your Trnly, J L} V d r cu o o } LL: ¢ � S W J � Cr �1 Dater c To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed m-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Youurrs/Truly, co w CL w ¢ w U W � Y k O O If Dints 3 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y � M C? d �j O_ D }. 369� N• eiQv , W i . .g A kL' f� I 0 Dates q q— To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a • 'hir�y, n (Z Y 00 w cV J � U CL V O c w J � I i i i Date. To the San be rust rdiuss City Council I as against any proposed no-somoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i py/ U er Yo Tr°lyc /A c; O W W 2 1 i i 3 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. e Y U V L3. r r o r w U W W- 1 1 0 Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �O ur p0 \/rJ U Lit�✓ Oi+ iez C I" C ,¢ L C 74 ,e Lr. ST Lx.4Lk eOCV-1e Yours Truly, ,yam ,4, w �'? O C.. r C /r r- CL c i 0 Date: ' °- 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I a® against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. on a ly, Y. W � W n'1 J _• C > V �. d C O > w U Uj K o 0 Dates ' To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. Ions Truly. i U Q CL U O 1/v 1J w v c LU o a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council { I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y s ly. Y _ L V d H U O � � T t j W tj i ME i 1 Date: — -2L To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any .proposed no-arcking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, W N —y v U CL U O > W U W D: Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w L� v Yours Truly, CL L O C Y W � J • 0 � Date. �-I -9 T RECEIVED "�� ! CLEFk '94 MAY 10 P 4 31 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. (� g00A1 j' yoU IHAUf I Alyl-H/ y G 9E7IE4 ro DO- 144 (5 I 9 / oPO or UeF/,Py /-14V15 V 5-In 0K) G SFclo, you $-POOL b A7 LF/1,51-AG60iv SM ok ,N6� j /N GockrpaG Cou*6.e- w/J6k-c� 99 ov OrT,W PEO/�C S�ox� Yours Truly. DW•v/EG G. i i P S_ /f yob sP�NT Aa mdcll T." E oNiodR /Voj 3'0 XA,6' c1T1' aVo&" J:1EEc 119ac11 6E7x-e- j O Dace: /9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Lours Truly. x L r� w v d r U _0 � r LL! ¢ w U W O� E7C ^ © 4 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your* Truly. LLIcz N W .. U � r v O o > > �z w U 1 o 0 Date t v y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Truly, N v .L/lf//f/Z� f32/loC�' c > w qZ, w w Uj g Y` i 0 O Date: ! t To the San Bernardino City Council I ais against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of g.n �io (,kk NAvC— pe-c IrNc- FAcrS rp A4A (L � flN I N-rcC-LICse.jTp-Ec ( Sog)) It-oGCOwIN & S 4�r p L C EaFA 2- pj jq Val? LL t-H E C1 s ( ions 1y, A E3 o / � E i cu w p. i i I Dates To the San Bernardim City Council I ass against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. tiyJLP/S D Q-L�J 1�,0 n�L/�u ZfLC/KL Y. cv Yours Truly, � N J U C� r U O lLS S J W W 6' r o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordfoance in the City of San Bernardino. x N Yours Truly, w N J � U CL r U C o r w �q w W K 0 t Date= [ Z/— l I C To the San Bernardino City Council 4[ I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San BBernarrdd�ino. / o� L Aze- W Tours Truly, N C d G � 1-' 4 W U �g�- R W p� 1 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. n n (� aA � D b4 A Yours Truly, Y � \ w cV J d r c ?. w w L J{� i 0 , 25 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -- Tt+�,✓ ��NT a m K� t4ow- F- 4't-I VHF- i4AVE7 �1 UST AS m (JCtq )2XQ 4T 1I c� 5mce-F R X14)2, 19 0 I c Your& Truly, o c y w = w U V W �T K Date: 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i i i x M Your Truly, w N w J U r V � W 6 7 � W W p O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7 J4 . Truly. Y � � w N J � L d r U O i w w p� p O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �>�s.j�e+en�s� CoC15�Q�1 hr,ncies � hould NoT be res�-�cfPOl. Yours Trul y---� Y Q W J CL � d U I o � � i w i Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. C Yours Truly, w N o o w W V w GL' 0 0 Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of Saner�Bernardino. "/./ //, 7- �/,�7 .��' u�l/I ar✓nh-�Pi �i�?r/jJ' � �✓5evs o.,lT y l soNN Yours Truly, oRo�os� s w i✓l�'s�rs � ado o w ED Qc w Date To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N 7 • Trn w a v > u+ ¢ > z w w I' i i 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Oao r — V&r ctxvc Cain i AD Y ra Truly, M ti j w N J U CL r- U � w ¢ { > s I w w � 0 0 Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N Tn1Y. U r- D } y ¢ ED w p� a mom p 0 Date ry To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w N Yours Truly, U G r C y Ui w v LU I i i f 1 � p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. iy; N 4 Yours s , a t; o w c _ w U g W Sa. D: d Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i Your ruly� W O W CV C v CL G _o c � > z w U w p� Date: c 3 3 y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. � �pc � N �xm.Fa rrnly, w o o y. w w . o To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w w N J U d U Q O r w V Lai [L' i O 0 Date r To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N Yours Truly. U � O C } W S W W Cr i I 1 p I.. Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your@ Truly, W N J Q U fL r- C; O O W W U g i O l Date r y— �-G — �Y To the San Bernardino City Council I o against any prgposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, Y C W L7 � r- U �O LL J W W eC Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ours Truly, SY (L W • J � r Ci G S1J 3 W LLJ U g P� Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours; 1'ru17> U V CL r L O }¢ � S W U W R Or Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y O W N J � U d C-� O Cr O } 4i L 7 W W O p Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -441 17 4L L1,J Your& my y Ch w J � V � o w w U 9 P . p D Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. (� VAA e ti eM P C' Y' rtTrs Truly, W TT J � t- L � O W J tiJ LLJ © 0 `9 RECEIVrD -f. i r t C1-EP� Date: — 94 M110 ?A .23 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aaoking ordiaanee in the City of San Berner 1 ,� \ ,{14, /^(�,A IV � , Y Lt Ton ly, Ak� o_ e y Gins -� a o To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. wry f' Yours Truly, J Q U LL r- U r w ¢ W J � w O� 3 7 I j Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ` N J N Yours Truly, 1 �> a 3 " b M, _ C T I J W I �. 1 . Date. 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-seating ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. uO Tours Truly. IN o_ i— c r w w I-> v r 0 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ae against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. P Yours Truly. z v U R CL r U � r o r W 4 W C> W � p Dates l 1 74 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly/, , U O W Ui F 0 Date i To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly, x N a U p C } W 4 W U � W O� i 0 Date=�' To the am Bernardino City Camoil I u against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ Yours Truly. x cz N ` w_ U O r D w Q > s w W aC O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y w N Yours Truly, a r- v o LL' ¢ W W p� 0 Q Date: J 10 - ~ To the San Bernardino City Council I = against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, v= N w J CL V CL U O^ O r w W U W 2 © Q Datez To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x N !oars Truly. D W CV J U � Y V O^ Gl }� � £ i tLJ W f i I t Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y � � W J � U � U G } LL � W C.) V W Cn p Date: A/� � /,�� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W N YOU Truly, J R U a Li O o > W MU U � W p� Cr ' v Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w Yours Truly, C-> jj O w w t.> G� o W k 4 . O � Date i To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, Y N 4V uJ h J �v U O. O U r- C W g W Q W � C o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed oo-awkiug ordinance in the City of S rnardino. _ h QAA ' !Dare Truly. x Ln [r_ N W .. J Q r- _O c r s w c? v cr i i f Date& 1- Cl 1 I To the gas Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed so-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 5�.. 0 Yours Truly, w j J a �_ U O r C L LLi U Q Uj � X i iI Date: r x : °5` To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City Of San Bernardino. �'Z U�.� -�ol.C7 — -�-'wL-©R,c..,+-r/ ✓2.c c C ,d (.n �n��� - w ry Tonic Truly, J � o � , w u, U O 0 Dates / —V7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed oo-asmokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. P7 Tours Truly, Y t!l a W cN ✓ _ U CL LLJO } s W d' T i I O � q ate$ I So the Sam Detoardina City Council I as against my proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of { rnsrdins. U U��G-L ` I l 0 w iomn Ttnlp, �J o �iVllh o °w U � W p� 0 O Date, Z/i"I/ 9 � To the San Bernardino City Council I amt against any proposed no-emking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. - Yours Truly, w Sd L U � C Uj J W U I © O Bata$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any Proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, �v MT LLJ r-- U 0 r 4 Date: � I — 9� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours T ly, J Li d L C } W V W EL' p O Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y J ,Q, V CL V 0 i r O y. W U at p 4 Date$ 1�2— To the San Bernardino City Council I set against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y w 4'9 Iomrs Truly. J � � Vi_ /�� �//lQt�!/G✓�V t- U � W W U � W O� i I © a Date. - -9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x _ Ton Truly. J � U 0. r U O W J W V cr Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. l W N I J � V V CL L O_ LL ¢ J � W W � Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YOU Truly. j Y W N J � V � Y_ O W = W LLI Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 i i v You c� V C' V CL 0 i > E w J � W K © O Bates S' To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. J CL Yours Truly. O s 4 � > ag w v w I p O Date: A-2-al RECEIVED°CI"1'1 CIEFK •94 Mwj 10 ?A IA To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. V C1 t T� S, �( >` � �1N8' C� �U� 'f14f,-- PFOPF_ LAAvC>� , q Yours Truly, pylqqv �N �r p O Date: 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. --- f ( � r UlfuSV� 7o reI Tna .6 Y W J V U d LU O e w W at 9 Date. Lf' I _ L To the San Bernardino City Council I asp against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. v Yours Truly, w .. J V d a r I{ w w � V r I ` 1 I { I p Q Dater '7`--- `Y' To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, LLJ Y � W ('1 J � U d G .r LL ¢ > s w U �{ -1 0 Bates 21�—z To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-eaoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. z Yours Z;Z�Iit%j�n M C 9 , d C? o o w LW U K t 0 Q Dates ^ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �Z— s-Av lour. T aly. � M us J V U d V O C !1l 4 W U.J K k 0 Q Date$ Y / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed m-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. w .. J CL Yours Truly, U LLJ o r w U W C s Date. 4— 7 Z - f) 4- To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. \ 4, ,, --) � SA- Tour@ Truly. W V CL x- C.: 0 O W W A C © O Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed oo-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. w q'1 C st d v O v � > ZP' w W 1 j 1 q Date: I To the San Bernardino City Council I aim against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of f San Bernardino. Yours ly. 7 i i Y � 1 W J d I CJ 0 w � w v W I Cr 1 i 7 0 Dater . To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, k � cz � w .. J � U � r L; O W U V W Qf d' iI r 0 0 Date: '�� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i I i i Yours Tru 'z v a: rn w L O i w �z w U W CC . O 0 Date: -3 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. c4. N Yours Truly. Cl- s >. s LL ;J �J cr O� Or ' Q Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am� against any proposed no-smoking ordinance In the City of San Bernardino. Y N w �! -� T re Truly, CL LLJv O i o � > 4Z W I p Date[ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 I Ioura ly, Q Q W J V V d H V � W Q W fI LLJ A i o Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y N wYours Truly. U O o � ? qi w U y w P� C' Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x N Yours Truly. U 0 � o o > w U � w q� 1 i i t Dates < To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours w J Q CJ CL V r 0 w w W ,_ Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y000uuurrss�,Truly, 1 Q M W J � f f c r LL � LL% I W O� CC I a Date: �3 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i x. lours Truly, U.J 7q CL N U _O d y i w W Q� I O Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 w 7. c J L: 1 r O c> o eat liJ U Uj jI O 1 1 Dates i To the San Bernardino City Couocil I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Ton a ly, Y w M L> d. CL U O W U y � Y• p C3 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N w 7? Yours Tral , d W U Ui © /V, Date To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Be rdino. 't Your Y M ua M d J V U � w W C Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. , 'A / Yours w .. J L � r o r w g v y LAJ © 4 To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. .z - 6ff"bIT" s4 91/� , [t W .. J � V � T r � L W CJ W 0 4 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yoµrs Truly, Y 0 W M J � L CL U 0 t � C } W C.) LLJ d' 1 t Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r cc � En Yours Truly, t% v 0- v O .. W > U W W Date vv� L To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. !oars Truly. Y 0 W J � U d e- �� O 1 C erg > L W LLJ i i d 0 Data. 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance In the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, / [Yi M w M J � U L 0 I Q W � s W cr O� fY Date: / 2 / �f To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x 2 M W L � d r U � Q C 1 � W LLi O� CL ' I, G a I Date 2 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Al-y .i Div srao,e?=-o //v _may AN LNF�rvv6�H-i�Nr of /�iy /���s/TS __ ON sOn'r� oTl-f� ,1 ion 17, Y W Cam.` - EL. i- U � r C44 W U W u o Date: f /L To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. z � Yo Truly, fi L O_ Gq.. 4 LL! U Lij OC Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I eo against any proposed m-amkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i, Yours T5uly, Y 0 � M J d G U � r L; O c r w i w v IT w rn tY ' Dates ba To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w M Yours Truly, CL > iS W W D: 0 0 Date: �j To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. dad" �) 4d �v vQ-� Yours Truly, x ec w .. U 'a cJ O o w w W dr Date. Vv L To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i/ 2r/ . �✓/L/l G/1 .�1 _ q .�F' �wnn�/ D La a't(-4'A d If,e-aCoe.ad, L.4 ILILP LWO 11/1 Y w ZoarsTruly, J IL c w W LU U { i a I o c� Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anDking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I�Jh' lop -fad I .Sa�oQS)Gf'/✓ �P � .�� � �b nir.�i °L i c� �f7o O �,4crp Yours/T/rf�uully,//fy/'�� Y CM w M CL LLJ Uj Cr Pave � p o p O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � U O- U C:) i 7 � W ,J V W O� K p ., To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Be�rdiro. b 1�117�s 7b fOns,�e Div V � V O I � D W LL: J � W p� Q � Date= r)Lq � To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. it w �N Yours Truly, J n ale,_ U O CI W W R C � v Dates ( /Z/— / To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-asmoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. u l/� - As l T iral C / w D. c� O o � W C.J jKLLJ Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I ais against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x / yr J � � a 7 o W U W K i Dates 7 —" To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 Ii i Y N � M J � E5 O en w Lil U W d' I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I ast against any proposed no-smokiug ordinance In the City of San Bernardino. Tamura holy, ? N d c y, w v w I Jf 9 - O � Hate. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ammoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. In ra Truly IL rn a _ N V � . V CD LM y Ui w c.J g wtr 1" i 0 a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ae against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YYoou�rs� Truly. Y Ch W N J � V � CV 0 t C } LL! ¢ 7 � W W K i 0 Date r To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-aeoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. hoh — S /n2o Ll ) �rtzl, 0 L) A-V , (� 6Jorn �cX_ Vlo� di Yours holy. ENV- w w r� o 3 Zt/6 14J, w U LLJ cc f i � cn 0 wLC) cm Y G > ] S W W t X31 �Y i x N W J V V d r U 0 O W U �g LAJ A� X31 �Y O � r - i � r wN w U d d U _O Ul rU y w w w � C � I �s i � Mars p O c1t ^ n � „ Y W lC1 J L'+ Q d Ci _0 G � y C � Z W U �{ d+ N Y rl W Ul L V d t- y E G Q ON Q s . L� r�CCByti � 7260 A6 WY27 fYti N w If1 v < a o � w w C av96 Q C?cuf gyro CIS 17Z�j ,7 G1�jytE ,,,y C1ziI&AA a.BvzZ,� O- 0<nc�0 /i all mlzy trz�f f0 C�CY1 tea/ ��-2�cI QJ)otceUG�- /J (2rZ t,'Z/eeY zt)✓ ,,ur Q �ZGiCQ . oaf �J �r�flQ t val? iccrz .ct � aGt. cli W J Q U d r- V O i C � w LLJ 25 " Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of 1 San Bernardino. tkLL -7 n Y`�dt.u_ �6-YyY��✓y�-t� I I I !oars Trl y, Y r Lc W .. J C.J � U � r W 3 W U W K © .� Dates Z / To the San Bernardino City Council I aw against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y W �i i t11 J V V n' lour$ ly. o > W W I I i i i I i i i 1 i 4 uate= / /- 9'Z( To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-noting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yonr ly, ° Y Lt � W V CL v O O � w U g K Y` o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I i i k I Yours Truly, x N W J � L-' W � r r y. @ W : J R W O% j O O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. m Yours Truly, H w Y CyZ�%y� J � U 4. CD r U 1 O W 7 W 0 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y N Uj U � 7 U O r D `y. > L W U i ii 0 4 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your T l 2 y, N ��.c't-L�C_� w �! J a f-- G } W J C7 W 0 Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed Do-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. y� 1 Tour. Truly, Y ^ n W U G r O W W V W OL Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y N YOUvqqruly, w J CL C-, 1 > W I C A J Date. L,7 . 4- y To the San Bernardino City Council I ar against any proposed so-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ILL 2f-j Shav✓0� n24_ ���cP Tours Truly. GL 111 W . . J � U d r D } X11 ¢ 7 S LU W O� Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sroking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, W ! so J R U CL r U � r O :> LU U LLJ Cr A a Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against an proposed am or igance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Yrury, Y r W J Q U IL. H I? r O W 7 W U g C A� i I t p O z� 5� Data= To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 I Ci 1(�l 1/1212-7 C�GC1R 63 U s-5 i-t5US O �O 't7p,ul1 Tl-a-�ti.iuC t)t" Yours Truly. LU d U C uj r w W uj Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours 7. I t O W U? J H V O W U V W � Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y r. LL � UYours Truly, r U � w c U63 W � . v Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y O W lIl LLJ U a d U _O O } W ¢ F W o Date. __ To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ��Zrr� T fit e� -i7 -10e T r. Truly. 7-0 O�IVX Y W J W U et C P• 9 p Date, ~� To the San Bernardino City Council I aw against any proposed no-sunking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly. x r"� w <! J � CL L; O t L7 > c > s w :> V w rn p Date: 111 _ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i You s Truly x 3 w Y O O } W W 0 r Date; fff To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y � Uj Q W U Yours Truly, v O _ c zu K Uj Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. A a Tour* wUri J � U d v c c > w U 1 W P� C I i {I 1 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino./ n A / / /� Yours Truly, r Y- o or w � J U � r G O^ C' r i w !J e cc £T +fI cc I i I I o Dater J To the San Bernardino City Council I ao against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Your* Truly. w J � U � r- �� O W w U V w T 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. i Y J U v d U _O y w �, p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. `lfiC�_. T6 S� /f9 l��tn y ri�i `IMP 7D Sao IL /�qj 2400�; 7- Yours Truly, I � o w St? J C> � r- L; O o y. w w Date= l To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i O_ c r ED W p� p Date, l Iq q To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-&noting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. dAaek A4,64 4B �'�-tv�iirr�5r Yours Truly, x w LAJ d o v ^ � w II I I D 4 Date$ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. f r I A I Yours Truly, Y O W L J V { d r `y4 U � P W �► W X EY p O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I au against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Q rte- •�, �Q ir2�rrc- �GeF Yours Truly, Y C Q LO W .. J U � Y- V � C > LL: � i w v v w p. Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 'A S yo ' Y'a 97 0!7 /7 l lrV/Ci �- �o h? 04fEr.✓)I�IG wYours Truly, a CD -- } w V V W O� CC t A j o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours ruly, OD cc n1 U V CL. L 0 C1 y' W U V W PT K f p Q Date / 9�� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. lour@ Truly. x CO W �^ U V p1KP�`U t- C� O cn Y y � w J Cr P7 V t Date:,- � �O - To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ��� x Q Yours Truly, w 4 J � O U � Y- U G1 r W ,SS J W W d' O Date= / To the San Bernardino City Council I ae against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y W OC f�l W .. J � U d 1- G.: O f ^ O w � w w p� g rr 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Uj w Twil YL� CL C o o �w W y U LLJ 1� i i i j Date: 3 3/ To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. n _ �FIS /5 UrSCi2r.�l/.cJ.p-mod� �1.� /�� �•t- /�CC��s �-pn.�$i 02.22,0 ?� 7 �o�S Y Ch Yours Truly 0- c o o r w w 1 0 0 RECEfVE�"�5f'1 CIEF:� Date: p 4 3a '94 MAY 10 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the C1ty of San Bernardino. P' s - 'J "U6- Ions Truly, V ai Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ae against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Er CL LU I � o o T w W I V Data$ Al To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i co Yours Truly, w t"? Ci d r" U O_ O w ¢ W J cr w p� O Datet_` {A To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 �E�G iT �SH�JU�A Or 7#F .4' &10T227W5 oE/zOGQrU� TO Accorrto�,vT� Hls y�� e c/,G6'GN cz mowl-EG S/-OKl2rPe— i1 'mw s 10"c Y CO Toms Truly, w 4 U CD W LLI U C 1 II . i i Data$ 11-3—9IC-1 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. s- w Yours 1 nc J U � O. C O U � O T W �a U LLJ 0: F p 4 Date* Ll I2? g To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. eo tJwi v Yours Truly, �— 31 v ..�- U O o w w W o: p L Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -7 x Yours ly, w J U � U � r' L U w Y` z 1 Q Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / w O R K r 04 T.(c 17 /79-/4/2 r�iC /1�R U.i.vT /�.4G'C Jv ;- �e2 T !oars Truly, J � CL o o W W U K p O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. o� ` g2 Tours Truly, x � w J GC:1 C� v � C r¢ r � w W i IU Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. c O w v C-1 may. Yours Truly, a L; O r c1:1 y W U W 1 I O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x ti Your ly, v w _. J d r_ CJ � C w 4 W w O� a a Date$ ' I I9 91-29y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. + I6 ve- Yours Trul Y N n w `T �� i J C U D- U O O W 4 W W � [C d Date: i i To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-amokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i 1 Yours Truly, Y (� W J � U Ck- L7 O t O 4 LU L LL1 LAJ D: Date= —2 To the San Bernardino City Council I av against any proposed no-evoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Yours Truly, U d e- U O > 41 W U K . p Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I� f M Yours Truly. LLJ l C-> �al J � U � r L O � C W :J R W � CC ' © 0 Dates ! To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Ions Truly, W � f U V' O. LAJr— C: _O O ?4, � 6 W V Date= °2 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. , atd i 1 oar /ALA 4ivA DaoL f—e C L T# /rleNaa ty �� LF M �il�r °t� Yours Truly, - J � U � U C= ifs � S'i-sLDkQUJ A / C j d � y U W Cr © n Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-sssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, c `O w 77 U U O U C 1 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7� c✓ e S -e a o &,ytlz �Noh P �7 Tours Truly. ® W W `� Batas To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-s�king ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x \_ tours Truly. III cz � i w J � d t- u � Cn y �y LL: U � W U Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. w �'1 J H U 0 r o r w U. to ac Date: y / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-swoking ordinance in the City of S Bernardino. Yours iprulyC-fc�`-"`mil w w M J U Q d _r U _O S w U LU p O Date, — 9� To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of Sao Bernardino. x Yours Truly, LLJ S'GDTT fJG�ls a r w w p� p 4 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours h Y U') W J � U � i- v O � T W W U cY W O� i 0 Date: - - 7 RECEWD•-C11'! IUE '94 MAY 10 P 4 :35 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. v � U nA . ! 6 0 Date, �— 3 - 9 y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Tours Truly, w n t: v C C� o o � w � au i 0 0 Date: qz To-The San BeZity T.oun I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. yr w W 7T u 951-553 w Cl°I� 243 -<7Z43 ex-�, �b6 Date: /— q To the San Bernardino City Council /I I am against any pro sed no-ssnking d{''[J�_nge in the City of San Bernardino. o rs Truly, x � U4 J CL Y- w w w z i © O Date. 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. L�Vcf l-h /U T /3 E RFSTIeI CT-11 Tours Truly, Y .a P [[: V W J d V f-- U 1 O 7 = W U LLJ 1 © 0 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed Do-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours 17, i � x � w J � r U 0 n/ w Ui s p .. Date& To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 2 Iowa Truly, W M U Nr CL. � O f D W W Ex i i f I Dates tzz- ,,/ / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino 7Z4,9,4/ fT 42AW X4AI,� - 4=277�43,y TD m Yours y, Y � W �W .. J L? d t- U O^ i O W W J LU K i i i 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. we� s g P` lJOVe�¢ �✓vHP�rr .1/t-PAS Tcsa.° T'�/C 30 girds / Zr i5 1414 C'rr�iL /2 / Yours ly. W M J � U Q. r W ¢ w w rn oc I - Date, To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours uly, LLJ Y J � 1 r U CD ir I � � Q to � 7 W :J V W O 38e Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours T w T O w � U 10 p O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I sa against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. fz !'► Yo i ly. IL v �> o o w W w A o � Datet To the San Bernardino City Council I m against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i ti w M J V C.J CL v o 0 W ¢ w v w p� ! t o � Data. To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Uj 1 x Your ly, 0 � c v Cam_ CL j. < _O � r W U LU Cr v t p Date$ L L,�--Q`1" To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ ti w v i Your Truly, o w a � s w Y Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. PCGt� TP L�7z " ,5- ( Ulr�Go9S7i�af su�r� l 12D,`so� w �= c Yours Truly. CL U _O w > L W J W � C r f Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1 Your Truly, 1 7 L� d r- ED O —� r L-1-1 n! w U W J � I r I 1 I i r Date: /Z/ Lq To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a Truly l� Y N 2 M W J � U f 0- r- Uj o r LW v v W rn p O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino.�q ✓yam �� ��/�Cl' � ��R2 x w M Yours Truly, d o Ail W �T�- 4172 I o Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I ams against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. SmDY, soCi 'S(, y` is C Y • ?rnly Y M1 2 Q J L O } w LLI �) Q W O� Date, To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Yours Truly, w d J V � d H C 7 E W Data To the San Bernardino City Council I ami against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. :ours Truly. o_ �o Lu CO ti 0- d r U O LAJ> i°6 W U �C+ Dates �� 1 To the San Bernardino City Council I = against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, 1 ( I J � r- V O C3 w w W K i v To the San Bernardino City Council I ao against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, J � v d o c- i c w U cr W CC a f Date. ' 2 - To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ( — Y W YOOTa Truly. d c> O v � > 1Ti W W C O Date& To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sucking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. vx Yours Truly. d 4; � W i Date. 41 RECEIVP4-Cf(7 CLERK '94 MAY 10 P4 :36 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �y :our. Truly, 4 kk I i I Q cl - s ! Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I an against ANSY proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. f Yours T". Y W N � CD U Q _ C1 U O w W W Uj Q Q� Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. wN Yours Truly, r- E3 O_ w y W 4 W U � K 0 9 r.� Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. NJ i T)a (2�v w CV J �> Yours Truly, > _ cu- C-) v w o� 4 c� o Date. / To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your* Truly, Ln � N W .. J � r V O_ D > w > s w J � W O� CC 4 Dates To the Sao Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w N C> CL d Cv _O r� w w U C i © 0 Date: / L/ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed m-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ n You Truly, N J `,. V a L O LL 7 W U LLJ Dater it To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Your* ly, w CN w N LU Ui J LL U _O � S W U R i i Date: / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. You Truly �c .p w N w _ d L; O W liJ U y C P Dates 4 y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i N Yours Truly, W .. c> CL CL � L O_ w J �r W O� O Date. L r To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your Truly, N W r U O_ C. } u ¢ y s w w o. o Date$ Tz To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W .. Li Yours ly. f U O t � ti 4 J S W W o � Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours T , Y [c N 11t .. J � U 0- T O en W V W j3 { 0 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. onra roly, Y _ 2 N W .. Y- U O C W CU U V W � i I 0 Q Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-esoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r You Truly, Y- U O W � o c Date:R&,2, &,2, d 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. S-Oo kA LO to IM DD c(f 1 f o tJ l.) L LL �Atc S e L�gkI ICC-A Di L L y ly. w U � U 0 C y W U Y da S� a O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y ,a J � V � r C w W � o mtat 9ti' To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your ly, / J d V 0. r-- v O o r W t w v © O Date. `t 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �= N w .. 0- i- 0- Yonr ly, V N W U Uj 1 O Date: &1-34 To the San Bernardino City Council III I am against any proposed m-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Kt4 �S�uS C)A 1 o JJ 74 you rJ c+ iL ---F- K) 67 THE <Z Y,, Q Yo Truly, w N o 1 ED w O 0 Dates 3� a To the San Bernardino City Council { I an against any proposed no-sinking ordinance in the City of i San Bernardino. j I f cYC Yours my W (V J C } LL 33;-3 ePiviN k- O Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-ssioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YOU rely, x NG[ d r O w w U g W C _ f c 1 tRNEC�— C11 ( CI_EF!� Date: 1��= 1 •94 MAY 10 P4 .24 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. mQ Q4 �� L� 0. k Ca - - A �a a To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a N ura Tru , 0 w r C� C r 1 ? W i{ 1 i f i� Dates - G/ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. z / f A S�Lio/el OR� J,4 r P o J g/ / L�/hl dDL 7 PC) N f e rr E Yours Truly, Y a�2�9AbE� N W b J � U � U C r U W C If f 3 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. � w� II NL)* MA I�ry M ����ir� P� Lon rho Cold GQ eacQ L�p s vTanta Tru17, OL � O f y46 e/ W D9 ��v �s�v Cr 1 � � s t4 AD -:6 VY\) - o :J C W � I ... ..�+.��... ....�.......�..... s _ ....rte U w lt1 VYA L R CL _O v � � 4`Z W U g W Y� f N w !11 tj R d w , a6go Go,� � J � U � Y V 0 r W 4 4J V �9 1 1 i �Pill' I Oil IMIA _I II I / i�: /irL �t/L •i' _I .1 > r �� ♦ 1 /i � �iii �_ 9 I ` i s� 0 Ci Steven & Karin clynch 3122 E. AtIa UC AVenlle Highland, Ca. 92346 March 31, 1994 To Members of the son Bernardino euy council: AS residents of the coy of San Bernardino, we would like to voice our disyleasure with the city eoundbs yroyosed ban on smoking in cell San Bernardino city, bars and restaurants. in this time of economic hardship, the lad thing a city council should be doing is eonstdedr49 a yroyosloon that would drive bullets from the city it is trying to suffort your yroyosed ban on smoking would do Just that. if this yrayosal is yassed we will be taking our business to the surrounding does, as will may other dozens. rroyosals similar to this one have been tried in other dues and they have not worked. Almost ad restaurants in the city have seyarate smoking and non-smoking sections and this seems to work fine. Maybe the city council should stoy trying to regulate what citizens do and dov do in the eating establishments in town, and focus on more imyortant issues such as gangs and Joblessness in the dty. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Karin ItCl h&C-4 Steven C. Clynch LL i ,J , c U U o r > i w U Date: O I `q 4 \ ' To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ ��• a $may p�,1Q Cn-.�.,..,.-s- , . Y Trnly. . rte-c✓�-- Y a CD Cb CM W v O Date: / y To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-simoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x b W. / d r �l /2(2 /w1 Alin w w or i Date To the Saw Bersmrdiao City Council I an against any proposed sm-smoking ordinance in the City of Sam Bernardino. c \ r l yv\- c ` ,,Tour&)C.Lt J � U W LLJ o= A 0 Datez To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly. J V U a � 9a 3A, o w :.J Q w Q� Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-stinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YOU .. y a u � t O 6 W � 7 W C V ON W t� Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sainting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. W J � V � Yours Truly, O t ^ w 90 y o x c�wx .YOr �� satel To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-stinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / Z Yours Truly. Ln CL w � } W U Uj i Date i To the San Sernardim City Council I " against any proposed m-awking ordinance in the City of San Bemardim. i You . Truly, u, O ¢ M y�- w lap y w w rn F t I Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tour* Truly, c"z u-i W M J CL �rz�7tiCL•..+lt C: O c w V V W p� 1 Date r To the San Bernardino City Council I sAl against any proposed no-stinking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Lri M � Toa iru17. U <T d r- L U O ' o �9a /'Y i&Rw e/we-r r s i i Date To the San Bernardino City Council {F I an against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of 4 San Bernardino. Y w Years Truly, CL �.�f14 r V O G� 7 E W p� K { i i To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y W d U W U C I O Date: / To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-socking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Truly, x O rs Ir C-7 Li d U O /5}� 0 i 7 ' w ' J V W � I i a Dates 2," To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, "' 1 � 19 � 1ST sfi J -it C5 yq o > W U y Y` 0 Date, '! l To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-saoktug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. _ //,� /,v//oN`` NlJ7C` .SLz� /,,L) i C 1c117 722 F-.�eLLDw1 $�f�c�a��77 �rlGl'Ce�d'.-u D� l ff/S LA's✓ yours , c CD w u' b`1 �uR�✓5 �Ii/Eh/U� CL � Sz W W 1' i I ]�aCli To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Berna im. ILO i w CD t v a >- Uj LU 3 1 p 0 Date=_ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-swking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. l �6 Fe:e 0C,.&I eELIV4 erCt{-�7i4 4S Go ■ Y _ W_ _C-> CL c6� f4 T T 7 W W f C 4 Date. 3 To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. O M Your* 1 4 U 'a n- G CO / y$ w ¢ a � j 0 Dates 'L i 4C/ To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. rc, i i - FR C--C-a nn t, f- Z %F Ec N . ,, 44 ! r rzg-6 An 4 LL 3v_st'N EsS AIC �U S i w C-SS �- �O ! ��'�4�✓I ]L LL � Tours truly, a � C� O r 1G � �• Llr�/ar� wn lSl� W A ll1.15 �o�('4 9a 3 o: , Date. y — 2 - v To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. cir V Yours Truly, a fl, Gy`o f/, ocu > w w �. V Date: To the San Bernardino City Council ��°/I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of t San m rnardi . ` D ILL Y V ?P` U-� tL T Y rs rrul ED C7% oZGu9 c� � p 92 1 1 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed w-asloking ordinance in the City of ruardim. Tou , Y 0 L V W J d U � im O / / i °w Date: �A X/ To the San Bernardino City Council I = against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r Your✓ Truly, h�fFwt �nn ���A�E e CL �J0 3 LU o w v a"'c G Date: Itl— L-. To the San Bernardino City Council I ac against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x, b Yours Truly, a ry o �s�g r�11;�� Lahe W � C,�gI,.J,4r,a( CALF Ra3�l� W 1 I Date: `d - 'a -(7LI To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed uo-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. b your@ Truly, w � w . . J L> � o -154 l . U�.'( o > eeII W /+G l �1�o U g W F, F7C j i a Da e: C 4 To the San Bernardino City Council I ao against any proposed no-s king ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YA v? urs Truly m Nl w U w p 4 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of P San Bernardino. 1�4s LAw Ave s Your &, grn cbW82E L _,% Cr.) C o 0 w � Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YOU 1y, Y U CL iT r C? O LU w W U o a Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I ao against any proposed no-asoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. N n truly, w r'? fff u IL cm MU LLJ �Z } i Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, N oZ7llOiZ /w-Cf�o CAL/ w M CL o w U W K 0 Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I ais against any proposed no-auoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ii w lours Truly. Old CJ Uj U d Datez To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-Booking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, c u_ > s w J V W Q� � i Dates y / To the San Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. M7Yau � ru y. w N �- r r V O LLJ W U q W Y� OC i O Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x iV Yours Truly, OL LU J .Q > �23 W U LLJ Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I I Yours Truly, 1 j w CL 1)W6- N, Gen4VAL 14vP C) W U i a I o 0 Dates jf LIAI To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-emking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 7oera Trulyr.A� N � w m VV J � --78.5o L CL o U � w p� K i i 1 o 0 Dabs To the Sao Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-asoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. it w J - U � e-- Ttltlra � V C W c Q y 7060 Cs�a✓cs s9fre Hr rGC�s,,✓ Co% 9z3 �rC Dates ZS To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w .. ° 7�MG-S J ; iCrDlrJN o (o44 c-1-t)K( 4 W � f—IlC�flC�q�aD � qZ��/(o cr Date$ To the San Bernardino City cooncil I an against any proposed DO-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Q J V � o Toara Truly / U-- E LLJ i i i © O Dates To the San Bernardino City Council 1 u against Buy proposed GO-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino, CByri/yI cAI7-,- -7- ny „� 4 /Ion 3m0/(ca r loan ly. C Q � `. a- o Uj U 1 1 1 3 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, w W Uj dx Dates I To the San Bernardino City Council I a against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. C1 S - aA- 1 1L w M Yours S ly. a �- yC-3W al ll/ Date: 0 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Uj UjU � E / W W K fi 3 ` I Dates -— To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance In the City of San Bernardino. M Yours Truly, CL _w M U 4 O > w rn a Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I all against any proposed oo-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours CL x M W M T� CL w J � Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I ass against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ours Truly, rrC� { 4(AA Y 292875,IV,4zn . w rn `-' o c r w U y W A� OC , Date���� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Y LU Yours Truly, `> d �JI0r,� Aelt C 7 O W W A f Date B To the San Bernardino City Council E I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your , W J � U d I O r6 W L W U 0 0 Date t3-31-?Z To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I /lVif.C� (.NLOL !J� 1////Lt'�L �Aa/Y.�✓� !T1 �x :en/r/n��///�y'ir� tai \o w r a. o w t w Q p O Dates-ff\C4AC,k 1 ! 9Y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino.� II I _ i V\G � -�D i1onP/ta A'r t-t. o al Tours Truly, a M -/�p�A Q y�� ^nak i t A qai // UOU W,A w <'? Karll� ,rls C4 e :� J � V d w w rn � f{ f I k C 0 Date$!i� 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I ais against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �. Truly, [z v w ( P.G.�o---� C9 U � r O w � E w U s C Y' p Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-swking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Iours Trull, a x NO w 4 � 0 O Dater Y' �0 To the San Bernardino City Council 1 801 against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. V 1 Q k Yours Truly, O w CD J � V � o r 7 � w � ' Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CL w ;'? Yon Y v li i U � a 41 /� ep �p �l/�s li9lr � 9�3 73 1 i I Li LUCA_�i .A Date q To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 11Z`2- rn(DL rd Y)e-) Yours Truly, w M Vlt�l 'G`�-�ilJ /v�U/f�ll 1�7D6 ✓�Q ��Q V C F LU W Cl LLI Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, I 9 6 W �1 � , 3 1 r Ps-e orr G Date L— 1 - 24 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. T } Cr od-F I i keI re l r k r k 7 $vnoF{e k Oa4- 5-make i 1 i Your. Truly. w C7.<,S e.� IV CL v r. V CT U O W U I 0 Date To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. CA l u 'nw w o,� yak i Y Yours Truly, M y `r' T- fZn a 61 u Q - rL 0 31935 Linylw Lao�lenYc ag w W K - © lvriyh f�ooil— Z J'l'lDienp b¢l�- 3 H2s�eii 4 - Z Dates Aes9f�n� To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-anokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, + Y � W _ C. v � ,° w U 1 l I Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I asit against any proposed no-asoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -T T Yours Truly. 3 ? /32GX-7`dFT1 o W Cr i Date: �` �7RECEIVFD-CIl'f CLEFK -94 MAY 10 P 4 20 iTo the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of i San Bernardino. / � eve, N /9/t a e2e� /,U e�.w i .9; 'TU drop TXL G/aRC/NOH9.5 5'p2CO.b9S, S7VIO Lqy/.iIG. T�e. (oL.9rv� o�) second L,a,. d s coke. DTs ?Rae , SO, oeo v<oyJ�+ Chic CK'ch Ye,l22 F//OI C4� Ce2 6li7- 5'-OR /oL,9 i /rt i jC7G 2 e � v�. 62enJ wozK/ni /.i. T/re /,ualosTizlgL hgzkrT!'/nce Foic zef y�4. -5 #AJd hnve. sce.✓ T t //zecT Po LUIT/OnJ To /"ARV C �7ewrlc'nL5/ �/zcn yoa12 SuL/o/iaizics, /�yp�rto�Lo/2 �c,5� C�Y2 o r gTGS CyA n✓I des 0 62e a� Loam 'truly, AJOWS TJre eoh 61vnTio nlg T/i,e> STe v2 LG-'S/lC 2 ' �A,{ /ze JjxoT< a' � I/eA.lT-( o/ CG /�2ecT To oua. /�Tr�os��ea� PO (3 ox ,4/ze a �aTs Kil//�G USA / EvCrry AIAA! GJOM9 �/ � �/��Tcy000 0 92397 CJ, Ld /ti�nLe 8'—/O ,,Ooa ✓o's o f SoLIW /,,:,o//uTqt,?s LE-ACk yeOIL Tice/rZ5 N07- 6,vOkjL CiGARe;ks q U a�AC /itJ e_ Tu/2QO/ To Need( -7Z Ca^)CCe.�v t Teo'aTn2 T c-T 01 7 /1 n T hu/ec /22oL �2e/L2n ,q N� r�ieTS OU2 4 7-e 's ¢ Lj-e.n Uy wL ane PaJ/iw� >�e pa/ee Foe 1-bt CheoMe. S�o /zb a//q TOK S�io S 5Teel /1/11 P4 /,U')- MA wa-FmeTu.t�U PLbTJ.✓G- �'- a�pn .� Ies , S' e�r-IeTrPeT a�TS - d Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. lour ly. c w �1? U V d v O W liJ C.7 0 0 m«= To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. YonjzY W L! J L> � d O W 4 W w � C _ Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i j i lour truly, x .- w M 0 LijW / U �.u. L/ - - To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Ions Truly �J U O t � W K 3�9 7 i 1 i . D Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awkiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Your Truly. Y _ Uj U O rn f Dates_ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. o N rs Truly. 0 © Gn- To - I " Date: —To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your rely, Y W J � U a c } r ! w I 0 Date. x/// 7f To the San Bernardino City Council I aw against any proposed no-snoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Z- O,epasE �} CkeSS 7AIlx zd42.0 -Y-0 Yonra x w v l /1/�STC.DTT- o_ o 141,/��il�A/C%/� Acre cA. 9-Z.�� W W K f Z i i { i Dater e To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x Your Truly, CL or a w J U <T r V � In w w W p� O. ` Dates /I Y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, kn C x G ae J -' CL G SJ r L W U g woL Y` a 0 Dates V- 1 -9 7 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y O 5- S/ Yo ta.�1i 7%/A RAJ Q l! I c.: O w c 1 1 1 a Dates y—,.? — / !x To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-amoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. � Your y, LLJY [L V U Q o � u, i i y 1 p C� Dates_ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sacking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your@ Traly, w V �-- AAi.GC.GO C/✓ Tip o . 1L3�G W iLU s Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of �San Bernardino. S dU aA4, S S I Vey. tAJ61,la Elh6t V Berne_ T G1nCLUS'/ Xn w� a T / rim die ��ai�e T C�sF_ awn So / ChZ-A1 Lim m 2tr� Yo Tru ly. #W? e14;7Yed J Y b CL u o LLJ � r w U V w p� I I Data �/- To the San Bernardiuo City Council I " against any proposed no-sooting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. I Yours Truly, i J d x/73 ( � (/It�'L' v 40 o W LLJ A i Dace. Colfa4 - - �( To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x N w I To s ly, ^ E uj W uj d A(-/3s- Dates To the Sao Bernardino City Council I ant against any proposed no-eaoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Your* CD d / w p� I _ r Date 641/ I To the San Bernardino City Council I am; against any proposed no-saioking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. GOI //.?/Iii �/l�®��?� ✓c- E Y Ioura y, ` rn W M /.lam V � W 4166 W C a i i I Datet q 03 9 _ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-sanking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ti lQr•' Yobs Tru�' �Y�pR w d LU LLI o A n� F.IU�ASId ',n1n�l�$ U g i I i 1 i i Dates �` Q— �� To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 0% Yours Truly, O w CV rL AX c / w v g w ii` p Date. To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-somoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. >< wC y iraly, J N L> � 2d d *1(/z 4C 4i f w U �A C C i c Date= 9L' To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardim. IsnUMEM Truly, Y LL o *In o n r w :J V W O� Dates Zf To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i Yours Truly, w_ C:P CL o W U W 4 I i Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly Y W V L/7 6 7l. ucsr ko�veU t-- � o U s 1 p 4 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Y C W J � � V d o � UA U 9 LLJ Y` $a 7 j3 I 3r i Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. cYC N Yours 7ru , J L;• CL CL /l c tt' 4 E �I W I v natet To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-ssoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. � � Yonrs lg. w N J U U c y 1 ¢ i.0 J � Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-muting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ( "�l srovLI� Lo 2 nF � a r�L"Ir"AajT's Yours St�ly. W U Ui Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-auokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your* Truly. ct O W N U - �} LU ccr" U O W 1 0 A y To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. C� Yours Truly, e— U O r w w v Va !/e o �� y 2 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I = against any proposed no-emoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. / i i leer.-Tn. , U: W M /v O a v o i o � w c w w , l E ! 4� 4 Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-auokiug ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x o Iours Truly, Ox W N J `> d r CJ O . 011 J(IYY\ LAJ D � U cr W O UC a.nt .a. 12ahclo - 2(R 0 Sun GfQ- I c fie„y vaiie-y- Z Dace: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Your T I Y V: f•1 W UIA J V U � U w U 9 P Date: To the San Bernardim City Council I am against any proposed no-waking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y ca w N Yours Truly. J I � T li(�L442 e)o LLJ Cc Y` q 17 D'3 0 4 Date: ` /^✓ — ` To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ,U�'eGl�J sue, 0--Org 4/22 D / OWAO&,7-70 Yours Truly, w M sv�) (7 o _ "79--�ft7� > > � f W U 4 LU v Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yo s Truly, Y IV Tl�� rii 0 _ a 1 w U Q w [C 1 © C� Bates To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-anoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y-004-�, ez!!) 1L) e r ialr,,1 7/2)y Ja' Yours Truly, v c d Cum C5 // U C:s i-- o r o✓l, in I 1 I 1 Date i `'�. __o"_(. - Q To the San Bernardino City Council I " against any proposed no-emoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x � w 1°1 J c_;, 4. Your& Truly, u, CA A 1707 i i Dates 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. LU WI J Yours Truly, v c CL G y > iuLc W Iz 3 Dater �J To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i L}P /mot �— � , /�-yl'. ti✓�C�/�— Yours Truly, cYZ [ w J CL D o �w w U g Lki Y� Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed Do-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, CL w .. � v r 7 o r w w w � p t3 Date& 4 — < l — t To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-aeoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. w M Tours Truly, J =_) CL _ o r U � W p� Q � f Date,�� E To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. ����Gw�Utxi Tours Truly, w tNe1 ��? �7�l J U @ E5 o o LL3 W Uj y ir A © Date, y I'I)- 9 To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, Ljj CD w � W o= i 0 O Dates ///U / 7"/ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Beernaarrdino..T/ /.t// aD r✓oL" a�c e�cauDn r o W aow lalD,4,e,m®tz r69 . ace aAj .Da rn pL �- ��o Gem x W v ' w 1 3 ' e a Date z cr / To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. i i �,p � S� l%lT Yours Truly, Y U � r 4 W U U Datel To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed w-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. �s' M T • Truly, w ED 0 Dater l � , \qqy To the San Bernardino City Council I u against any proposed no-stoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 1'TJ� Yours Truly, x N W J � U d. � o c W �Ro�� Y Za-3g3g • ' /ice 1�4f•I///�I�� vp. � 3 Dater To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-simoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, x � ' [t N w .. o_ w J � w p� j 3 k o Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. a x Yours Truly, I W N 3q,-2- LU o W C i i 7 Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. r � N L. Q a Yours Truly, r ui U Uj 9-Z_az� Z Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours Truly, n " cz LL, J V W O\ Lr ' s f 1 © Q Dates c, 2 ESQ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. -I riJa-Fe kusknoe,Pg g�ln��c� �ie CIU� �o C1��CfYY�lvl4. wy11C� Cus�(wxsrs ooad sem o L,,war> An hca.le Cus�rs and C2m�agA zab Can c5? O2 t� 4U , cesire �a jPaAf-antzc, SmOk,nC6 (6�CA)tIck6Ua, 4WA �A nod - � (oho Si �o�ernmQrl� x onra irnly, w N V V V � o r i z I to8 M-r v�2NO..laale. Sg > 0,R4w'0IUV WC Ch SZ3ZU W W gr f Date$ L/ To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. 11 C L^S �Kw� �(Z— 1.� C� �1—Sy✓� eK�rt— Cc S w� 6 k�f1�v� T� C � S Yours Truly, p ( 1 � � FI �tV�UIF n2 C07 3G 12( MeasF Ci- C���a cA � c? � a x J Q U y O u' r w v �. ® Gle Ad°rCc Date= To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-aeoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. qj AMA) S5OM41 rs0rl ^ jSF Q cJ d0n GI �j mc�kQ> y U 0 � Tours Truly, Y U EL Uj O W U LLJ o ateg To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-e.oking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. U a Yours Truly. LL C / LL% i f E I I O Dates oZ To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Y�oure Truly,, 1��G ru /� W M i a v o i W } y W U d l!J O� f1C I _ . © t� Date. / So the San Bernardino City Council 1 am against guy Proposed no-snoting ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. x is 7 ly, iii,. w N U �. O. LLJ > / v v �LS'o� Date r� To the San Bernardino City Council I as against any proposed no-tipti �prdioanca the City of San Bernardino. i S �f CL T U � re Tre 7, t cn r LU LL) i Dates_ To the San Bernardino City Council I o against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Tours Truly, D 6 Y Lr% Cpl J Q U d 9�z3P� J <7 W T o Data -41-97Z To the San Bernardino City Council I sa against any proposed no-sooking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours o , Q Q w v1 d Y- V 0 w W r LAkL- Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. : a You y, CL J � U O V r W U jK 7I i i 1 lI 1 Date: To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Yours T . w v T D I a V O Y 3 W V W C O� fr ' Dates (� / To the San Bernardino City Council I an against any proposed no-smoking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. /nca S/! oca��'l S'?IPC�/il 'VOC�cY 7�i vh 1° n �/v Yl'n r -P 1 ✓n02 eYla !'� 1S'S/./ PSr ANU' � � �n � n nn - sa✓r D �'cPt� . x Tours Troy, w CV) � U CL Cn LLJ � , �.4 27 LLJ LU f p 0 ('I f Date: - I f To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-aanking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. Z-5 �Lz2� L-/" 1 � \ I I d Yours Truly, r (Z 1[Yl U W Ch. 7 V sms c/ r D W 1 W U �{ i C P, I! { Dates To the San Bernardino City Council I am against any proposed no-awking ordinance in the City of San Bernardino. °l Z Yours Truly,